Graduate teaching assistants impact student motivation and engagement in course‐based undergraduate research experiences

Abstract

The drive to broaden equitable access to undergraduate research experiences has catalyzed the development and implementation of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). Biology education has prioritized embedding CUREs in introductory labs, which are frequently taught by graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). Thus, a CURE GTA is expected not only to teach but also to support novice student researchers. We know little about how GTAs perform as research mentors in a CURE, or how the quality of their men-torship and support impacts undergraduate students. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a phe-nomenological study of an introductory biology CURE, interviewing 25 undergraduate students taught by nine different GTAs at a single institution. We used self-determination theory to guide our exploration of how students' autonomous motivation to engage in a CURE is impacted by perceptions of GTA support. We found that highly motivated students were more likely to experience factors hypothesized to optimize motivation in the CURE, and to perceive that their GTA was highly supportive of these elements. Students with lower motivation were less likely to report engaging in fundamental elements of research offered in a CURE.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Graduate teaching assistants impact student
motivation and engagement in course-based
undergraduate research experiences
Emma Crystal Goodwin
1,2
| Jessica R. Cary
1
|
Vivian D. Phan
1
| Hayley Therrien
1
| Erin Elizabeth Shortlidge
1
1
Biology Department, Portland State
University, Portland, OR, USA
2
School of Life Sciences, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Correspondence
Erin Elizabeth Shortlidge, Biology
Department, Portland State University,
Portland, OR 97207, USA.
Email: eshortlidge@pdx.edu
Funding information
National Science Foundation
Abstract
The drive to broaden equitable access to undergraduate
research experiences has catalyzed the development
and implementation of course-based undergraduate
research experiences (CUREs). Biology education has
prioritized embedding CUREs in introductory labs,
which are frequently taught by graduate teaching assis-
tants (GTAs). Thus, a CURE GTA is expected not only
to teach but also to support novice student researchers.
We know little about how GTAs perform as research
mentors in a CURE, or how the quality of their men-
torship and support impacts undergraduate students.
To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a phe-
nomenological study of an introductory biology CURE,
interviewing 25 undergraduate students taught by nine
different GTAs at a single institution. We used self-
determination theory to guide our exploration of how
students' autonomous motivation to engage in a CURE
is impacted by perceptions of GTA support. We found
that highly motivated students were more likely to
experience factors hypothesized to optimize motivation
in the CURE, and to perceive that their GTA was
highly supportive of these elements. Students with
lower motivation were less likely to report engaging in
fundamental elements of research offered in a CURE.
Received: 7 September 2021 Revised: 8 December 2022 Accepted: 30 December 2022
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21848
|
© 2023 National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
J Res Sci Teach. 2023;1–31. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea 1

Our findings suggest that GTAs directly impact students'
motivation, which can, in turn, influence whether stu-
dents perceive receiving the full research experience as
intended in a CURE. We contend that practitioners who
coordinate CUREs led by GTAs should therefore offer
curated training that emphasizes supporting students'
autonomous motivation in the course and engagement
in the research. Our work suggests that GTAs may differ
in their capacity to provide students with the support
they need to receive and benefit from certain pedagogi-
cal practices. Future work assessing innovative
approaches in undergraduate biology laboratory courses
should continue to investigate potenital differential out-
comes for students taught by GTAs.
KEYWORDS
course-based undergraduate research experiences, self-
determination theory, student motivation, undergraduate
research experiences, inquiry, graduate teaching assistants
1|INTRODUCTION
For students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, participating
in research as an undergraduate is often a transformative experience. Documented positive
impacts from undergraduate research experiences include increased student motivation, inter-
est in STEM, and retention in STEM degrees and careers—particularly for students who are
traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields (Seymour et al., 2004; Lopatto, 2007; Laursen
et al., 2010; Eagan et al., 2013; Robnett et al., 2015; Carpi et al., 2017). Therefore, several
national calls have been made to expand access to research and provide research opportunities
for all undergraduates in STEM fields (Brewer & Smith, 2011; Olson & Riordan, 2012; National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2015;2017). Traditional undergraduate
research experiences follow an apprenticeship model, where students work on research projects
within a faculty member's lab under the mentorship of the faculty researcher or other members
of the lab (Seymour et al., 2004). However, there are insufficient apprentice-based research
opportunities for all biology undergraduates, and there is inequitable access to these limited
opportunities (Bangera & Brownell, 2014). For example, first-generation college students may
be less aware of the benefits of pursuing a research opportunity, while students from histori-
cally privileged groups may have greater knowledge about how to approach a research mentor,
and be more likely to be selected to participate in competitive positions (Bangera &
Brownell, 2014; Cooper et al., 2021).
To improve access to undergraduate research opportunities, universities are increasingly
using the course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) model (National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2015). CUREs have emerged as an evidence-based
2GOODWIN ET AL.
|

approach for engaging students in many of the same facets of research as in an apprentice-
based research experience, but in the classroom setting (Auchincloss et al., 2014). Research ele-
ments of a CURE include (1) students using multiple scientific tools and practices (Scientific
Practices); (2) students collaborating with their peers and instructors (Collaboration); (3) stu-
dents engaging in iteration by revising and building on their experiments or the experiments of
others (Iteration); (4) students conducting research that has the potential for novel discovery
(Novel Discovery); and (5) students doing work that is broadly relevant, with implications that
could be important to a scientific or local community outside of the classroom (Broader Rele-
vance; Auchincloss et al., 2014). Novel Discovery and Broader Relevance are closely related con-
cepts that are sometimes collapsed into a single element (“Broadly Relevant Novel Discovery”;
Cooper et al., 2019; Goodwin et al., 2021). It is the presence of Broadly Relevant Novel Discovery
that distinguishes the CURE model from other inquiry-based laboratory curricula, where stu-
dents may also engage in student-driven experimentation, though with little expectation of pro-
ducing potentially novel or publishable work (Auchincloss et al., 2014; Brownell &
Kloser, 2015; Cooper et al., 2017,2019; Goodwin et al., 2021). CUREs can offer undergraduates
benefits similar to those obtained from apprentice-based research experiences, including
increased scientific and data analysis skills, improved understanding of the process of science,
increased self-efficacy and interest in science, and increased retention in STEM fields (for exam-
ple, see Harrison et al., 2011; Brownell et al., 2012,2015; Shapiro et al., 2015; Rodenbusch
et al., 2016; Indorf et al., 2019). Additionally, there is some evidence that CURE experiences can
be particularly impactful for students traditionally marginalized in STEM fields, though further
work is needed to better understand if and how CUREs provide disproportional benefits to
underrepresented groups (Reeves et al., 2018; Cooper et al., 2020; Ing et al., 2021).
CUREs increase equitable participation in research and can result in various benefits for
undergraduates. Thus, there is growing interest in integrating CUREs into the undergraduate
curriculum, specifically in introductory courses, when students are most susceptible to leaving
STEM fields (Graham et al., 2013; Bangera & Brownell, 2014; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, & Medicine, 2015). However, one factor critical to implementing CUREs en masse
has been largely ignored: graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) provide the majority of laboratory
instruction at over 90% of research-intensive institutions, with only 24% of introductory labs at
large institutions being taught by tenure-track faculty (Sundberg et al., 2005). Previous research
on CUREs largely neglects to study the efficacy of GTAs as CURE instructors, and most studies
have been conducted in classes taught by PhD-level instructors, not GTAs (i.e., Brownell
et al., 2012,2015; Rodenbusch et al., 2016; Indorf et al., 2019). The structure and intention of
CUREs often necessitate a shift in the instructor's role: instead of being a content-deliverer or
overseeing students as they complete traditional lab activities, CURE instructors act as research
mentors and guides for their students. Faculty and GTA instructors of CUREs have described
that fulfilling this mentorship-teacher role can be challenging (Shortlidge et al., 2016,2017;
Heim & Holt, 2019; Goodwin, Cary, & Shortlidge, 2021). Another CURE-specific challenge for
instructors is needing to deal with the inherent uncertainty of research in real-time with stu-
dents (Shortlidge et al., 2016,2017; Heim & Holt, 2019; Goodwin et al., 2021). Large-scale
expansion of CUREs in introductory biology laboratory courses will, therefore, require consider-
ing the capacity of GTAs to expand their instructor role to effectively serve as CURE research
mentors.
Change initiatives to promote the adoption of evidence-based teaching pedagogies, such as
CUREs, are not easy to foster. A review of change strategies found that a significant barrier to
GOODWIN ET AL.3
|

adjusting one's pedagogical approach can occur when the existing beliefs of instructors contra-
dict the philosophy of the instructional practice they are engaging in (Henderson et al., 2011). It
is possible that some GTAs of CUREs will not fully understand or buy into the purpose of
CUREs in the introductory biology curriculum, while other GTAs may be insufficiently
equipped to effectively teach a CURE. Either of these scenarios could result in a failure to pro-
vide the intended research experience to undergraduate CURE students. Researchers have
suggested that some GTAs assume that introductory students are unprepared to succeed in
research or inquiry-based labs: consequently, GTAs teaching these courses can have trouble all-
owing students to take control of their own learning (Kurdziel et al., 2003; Gormally
et al., 2016; Heim & Holt, 2019). Furthermore, graduate students—even those who are inter-
ested in evidence-based teaching practices—can struggle with adopting such practices. Barriers
hindering GTA adoption of evidence-based practices include limited access to teacher training
(Luft et al., 2004; Schussler et al., 2015; Connolly et al., 2018; Goodwin et al., 2018), the belief
that evidence-based teaching is not compatible with the type of course a GTA is teaching (Luft
et al., 2004; Goodwin et al., 2018), or the perception—perpetuated within academic culture for
decades—that teaching should not be a prominent focus of graduate studies (Goodwin
et al., 2018; Shortlidge & Eddy, 2018; Lane et al., 2019). These barriers may result in variability
in the capacity of individual GTAs to perform as quality CURE research mentors, which then
impacts the experiences of undergraduate students. On the upside, GTAs report they lack
opportunities to implement evidence-based teaching practices (Goodwin et al., 2018), and hav-
ing GTAs teach CUREs is an opportunity for GTAs to practice teaching with evidence-based
practices.
A central goal of engaging students in a CURE is to increase student motivation in science
courses and careers (Auchincloss et al., 2014; Corwin et al., 2015). Student motivation within
the CURE setting has been linked to increased scientific self-efficacy, tolerance for overcom-
ing obstacles, and persistence in scientific fields (Corwin et al., 2015,2018; Olimpo
et al., 2016). However, many GTAs who teach CUREs describe challenges with motivating
students to engage in the CURE (Heim & Holt, 2019; Goodwin, Cary, & Shortlidge, 2021). For
some GTAs, a lack of student motivation does not present a substantial challenge, but other
GTAs of CUREs describe significant struggle and emotional cost connected to supporting stu-
dents' motivation and experience (Goodwin, Cary, & Shortlidge, 2021). We anticipate that
GTA mentorship quality—specifically how they support students in a CURE—will impact
student experiences in the course and their overall motivation to engage with and pursue
science.
1.1 |Self-determination theory
We use self-determination theory (SDT, Ryan & Deci, 2000) as a framework to explore how stu-
dents' motivation, experiences, and perceptions of participating in a CURE were impacted by
their GTAs. SDT has been abundantly employed over the past several decades to explore stu-
dent motivation in a wide variety of learning contexts, including K-12 education, undergraduate
education, and adult informal education (for example, see Glynn et al., 2011; Hagay & Baram-
Tsabari, 2015; Jones et al., 2017). SDT provides a taxonomy of motivation that organizes motiva-
tion types on a continuous scale of self-determined behavior: Amotivation (lack of value and
motivation) and Strictly External motivation (compliance with external rewards/punishments)
are indicative of low autonomous (self-determined) behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In contrast,
4GOODWIN ET AL.
|

Identified Extrinsic motivation (personally recognizing utility value) and Intrinsic motivation
(interest, enjoyment, and satisfaction) progressively indicate increased self-determined and
autonomous behaviors (Figure 1;Ryan&Deci,2000). A recent meta-analysis examining data
from 273 published studies found that autonomous (Identified Extrinsic and Intrinsic)forms
of motivation are positively correlated with several student outcomes, including effort,
engagement, affective outcomes, and academic performance (Howard et al., 2021). The cor-
relation between autonomous motivation and student outcomes is likely due to increased
effort and investment on the part of autonomously motivated students (Ryan & Deci, 2020).
For students in a CURE setting, we predicted that Amotivation and Strictly External motiva-
tion may present as a lack of interest in engaging in the course, such that students are
unlikely to do more than required to get the grade they desire. Alternately, students who
have Identified and Intrinsic motivation toward the CURE are more likely to invest their time
and effort in the course.
SDT further posits that the three basic needs of Autonomy,Competence, and Relatedness
must be met in order to support students' autonomous, self-determined motivation (Figure 1;
Ryan & Deci, 2000,2020). Autonomy is experienced by students with a sense of ownership and
internal control over one's experiences. Competence is experienced by students who feel that
they are appropriately challenged and have a sense that they can succeed and grow. Finally,
Relatedness is experienced by students who feel a sense of belonging, support, and connection
to their environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000,2020). Numerous studies have identified positive rela-
tionships between student outcomes and environments that support their basic needs (reviewed
in Ryan & Deci, 2020). These studies often focus on the impacts of providing Autonomy-support
for students, which is often accompanied by also providing Relatedness and Competence sup-
port. For example, when undergraduates in an organic chemistry workshop perceived that their
GTAs supported student Autonomy, there was a positive impact on course grade and affective
student outcomes. This included intrinsic motivation and feelings of competence (Black &
Deci, 2000). Furthermore, the effects of supporting student Autonomy disproportionally
FIGURE 1 Autonomy ,Competence, and Relatedness are hypothesized to support autonomous forms of
motivation. We hypothesize that students who perceive higher levels of Autonomy,Competence, and Relatedness
are likely to experience more Identified Extrinsic and Intrinsic motivation, and are therefore more likely to
engage in the CURE. Students who experience insufficient Autonomy,Competence, and Relatedness are unlikely
to be motivated to engage in the CURE beyond complying with minimum course requirements (Amotivation/
Strictly External motivation). Figure inspired by Ryan & Deci, 2000.
GOODWIN ET AL.5
|

benefited the students who entered the class with low initial autonomous motivation (Black &
Deci, 2000).
We selected SDT as a guiding motivational theory for this study because we hypothesize
that GTAs in a CURE environment will be uniquely positioned to influence students' per-
ceptions of Autonomy,Competence,andRelatedness. For example, a GTA could negatively
influence students' sense of Autonomy by exerting excessive control over experiments, or a
GTA could positively influence students' sense of Relatedness by being approachable and
encouraging or creating a collaborative research environment. Furthermore, these factors
could impact student perceptions of experiencing the critical research elements of the CURE
model. For example, a student who experiences low Competence as a researcher may not feel
they truly participated in Broadly Relevant Novel Discovery in a CURE. Understanding how
GTAs influence student perceptions of Autonomy,Competence,andRelatedness will enable
educators implementing CUREs to assess the effectiveness of employing GTAs as research
mentors in a classroom setting and to inform training for GTAs who teach CUREs.
1.2 |Research questions
We expect that the degree to which GTAs support student Autonomy,Competence, and Related-
ness will directly impact student motivation, and in turn influence the willingness of students
to engage in and experience the critical components of a CURE (Figure 1). In this study, we
explore three research questions:
1. How does student motivation in a CURE vary by GTA?
2. How is student motivation in a CURE impacted by perceptions of GTA support for their
Competence,Autonomy, and Relatedness in the classroom?
3. Does student motivation relate to how students experience critical research components of
a CURE?
We hypothesize that students will perceive different levels of support from their GTAs
regarding Autonomy,Competence, and Relatedness in the CURE and that students who perceive
their GTA supports these elements will be more autonomously motivated in the CURE. Finally,
we hypothesize that students who are more motivated will be better able to recognize and value
the opportunities to practice critical CURE components.
2|METHODS
2.1 |Research design
In this study, we use a phenomenological research design to understand how individual GTAs
can impact their students' experiences. Phenomenological research aims to describe the lived
experiences of individuals who have experienced a particular phenomenon, and often involves
conducting interviews with study participants (Creswell, 2009). We present a thematic analysis
of interviews exploring the experiences of undergraduate biology students taught by nine differ-
ent GTAs in a CURE at a single institution. This work represents one study unit of a larger
multiple-case study that broadly explores the impacts of GTA-taught CUREs from the
6GOODWIN ET AL.
|

perspectives of both GTAs and their students. In our multiple-case study, each of the nine
GTAs' pooled lab sections was treated as a single “case,”with two embedded units for analysis:
(1) the GTA; and (2) their students (Yin, 2017). Throughout this study, the researchers gained a
deep familiarity with the context of the CURE. This involved many conversations with CURE
faculty leads, teaching observations of every GTA during 1 week of the CURE, and collecting
several different types of data from both GTAs and students at different points throughout the
term. Because of the scale of the data collected in this case study, our analyses are divided into
three study units. In one study unit, we conducted interviews with the nine GTAs and found
that GTAs differ in their perceptions of the purpose of their role as CURE instructor (Goodwin,
Cary, & Shortlidge, 2021). A second study unit draws on multiple data sources to explore the
variation of experiences and perceptions for students who are taught by different GTAs in a
CURE (Goodwin et al., 2022). The study unit presented in this work is designed to understand
how different GTAs create different experiences for their students by exploring variations in stu-
dent perceptions of their GTA's support in the CURE classroom.
2.2 |Study context
We conducted this study in Fall of 2019 at a research-intensive institution in the Pacific
Northwest. Students in a high-enrollment introductory biology course participated in the HHMI
SEA-PHAGES CURE curriculum (Jordan et al., 2014). In total, there were 20 laboratory
sections (n=440 students), taught by nine GTAs. Six of the GTAs were pursuing PhDs, while
three were pursuing master's degrees. Six GTAs identified as women, and GTAs were, on
average, 29.6 years of age (SD =5.2). All but two GTAs had previous experience teaching the
SEA-PHAGES CURE curriculum. All GTAs participated in a week-long “boot camp”to learn
how to teach the CURE at the start of each semester, and participated in weekly GTA meetings
to collaboratively discuss the CURE instruction.
The SEA-PHAGES program is a “network”CURE, in that it is a set curriculum that has
been developed for instructors to implement at many institutions, distinguishing it from “inde-
pendent”CUREs that are often developed around faculty members' individual research pro-
grams (Shortlidge et al., 2016). In the SEA-PHAGES curriculum, students collect soil samples
from which they aim to isolate and characterize novel bacteriophages capable of infecting spe-
cific bacterial hosts (Jordan et al., 2014). In SEA-PHAGES, students experience each of the five
CURE elements in that: (1) they engage in multiple Scientific Practices, including learning dif-
ferent scientific techniques (e.g., micropipetting, gel electrophoresis) and skills, such as data
analysis and science communication (e.g., writing scientific reports); (2) they Collaborate with
other students and instructors throughout the duration of the course; (3) they have opportuni-
ties to Iterate several of the experimental steps in order to successfully isolate and characterize
their bacteriophages; (4) any bacteriophage they successfully isolate is likely to be Novel and
previously undescribed by other scientists, due to the great diversity of bacteriophages; and
(5) bacteriophage information is archived in an online database and has the potential to be use-
ful for other scientists (Broader Relevance). However, the Broader Relevance of this implementa-
tion of the SEA-PHAGES CURE is limited, as the bacterial host that students work with does
not have a known relevance within the scientific community (Goodwin et al., 2022). Further-
more, students in this course are unable to conduct genomic analyses that could feasibly
increase the value of a contribution to the online database (Goodwin et al., 2022). Students who
do not successfully isolate their own bacteriophage after attempting to do so for several weeks
GOODWIN ET AL.7
|

are given a sample of a previously isolated “practice”phage and follow the same subsequent
experimental steps as the students who successfully find their own novel phage.
2.3 |Participant recruitment and demographics
At the end of the term, we recruited undergraduate students to participate in interviews. Two
researchers (the lead and senior author) visited each CURE lab section during the final weeks of class
to announce the opportunity for student interviews, and we followed up on the in-class announcement
with an email recruitment to all enrolled students. We received responses from 40 students across the
lab sections. Our goal was to recruit three student representatives from each of the nine GTAs' sections
for interviews, and we accomplished this by selectively scheduling interviews with students based on
their lab section enrollment. Low volunteer rates for students of two of the GTAs resulted in two,
rather than three, student interviews representing those GTAs' sections. In other cases, we chose not to
interview additional students from GTAs who were already represented by three student interviewees
to avoid oversampling from individual lab sections where several students volunteered.
We interviewed 25 students in total, representing each of the nine GTAs' sections at least twice.
Demographic data of interview participants were collected from an end-of-term survey adminis-
tered to all CURE students during the final 2 weeks of class. While data from this survey informed
other aspects of our larger case study, only demographic data from the survey is considered in this
paper. The average interview participant age was 19.9 years old (SD =± 1.5 years), and 24 partici-
pants self-identified as women. The high proportion of women interview participants reflects both
the demographics of the broader course (approximately 70% of enrolled students self-identified as
women), and volunteer bias, such that women are often more likely to volunteer than men
(Rosenthal, 1965). We recognize this as a limitation in our work. Nine participants (36%) self-
identified as belonging to a racial or ethnic group historically marginalized in STEM fields, and
eight participants (32%) identified as first-generation college students. Only one participant reported
having previously participated in an apprentice-based research experience.
To help distinguish between the different GTAs, we assigned gender-neutral sea-themed pseudo-
nyms to each GTA, in reference to the name of the curriculum (SEA-PHAGES, see Figure 2for
pseudonyms).
FIGURE 2 Students' holistic motivation by GTA. Icons represent the number of “highly motivated”(blue
triangles), “somewhat motivated”(green squares), and “amotivated”(brown circles) students of each GTA.
8GOODWIN ET AL.
|

2.4 |Student interviews
Interviews were conducted over an online video-conferencing platform by the lead author one
week after the term ended, and each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. We used a
semi-structured interview format, allowing the researcher to ask follow-up questions as needed
while following a pre-determined set of interview questions (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006). Inter-
view questions were designed to explore students' perceptions of experiencing specific CURE
and SDT elements in the course, perceptions of their overall experience in the CURE, and per-
ceptions of how their GTA influenced their experiences in the classroom (for full interview pro-
tocol, see Table S1). We conducted face-validity checks of our interview protocol
(Taherdoost, 2016) through pilot interviews with six introductory biology students who had
taken a CURE at a different institution. Student responses during face-validity interviews
prompted minor clarifying revisions to the final interview protocol.
Students were assured that their participation in the survey would not be disclosed to their
GTA or instructor of record and would not affect their course grades. Interview participants
were offered gift cards as compensation for their time, and this study was approved by the Port-
land State University Institutional Review Board (no. 196388–18).
2.5 |Data analysis
A team of four researchers (the lead and middle authors) read through a subset of interview
transcripts (six transcripts) and formed a list of potential codes. These codes were generated
inductively by identifying themes that arose in the interview transcripts, and deductively as the
interviews intentionally explored: (1) student motivation in the CURE; (2) how student interac-
tions with and perceptions of their GTA impacted their experience in the CURE; and (3) student
perceptions of the CURE and experiences with the five CURE elements. We used the CURE
and SDT frameworks as a priori guides to reorganize our initial list of codes, grouping all codes
into themes aligning with SDT (Amotivation,Identified Extrinsic motivation, and Intrinsic
motivation, the basic needs of Competency,Autonomy, and Relatedness; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and
the CURE elements (Use of Scientific Tools and Practices,Iteration,Collaboration,Broader
Relevance, and Novel Discovery; Auchincloss et al., 2014). Because students often discuss Broader
Relevance and Novel Discovery without making a clear distinction between the two concepts,
we join previous researchers in collapsing these two themes into a single category, “Relevant
Discovery,”for analysis (Cooper et al., 2019; Goodwin et al., 2021). Each code within the CURE
and SDT-related themes was characterized by a short title and a definition that was created to
help the researchers understand and remember the scope of the idea captured by each code.
Researchers used this draft codebook to code three additional interview transcripts and met
after reading each transcript to discuss coding decisions and to edit and refine the codebook.
We then used the final codebook to code all student interviews, including the nine inter-
views used in codebook development. Each researcher read the same interview and then met as
a team to discuss every coding decision to a consensus. Informed by the SDT-aligned coding,
we additionally considered each interview holistically and categorized students by their overall
motivation level regarding engaging in the CURE: “Highly motivated”students were enthusias-
tic and had high internalized value for the CURE, and often went above and beyond what was
strictly required of them in the CURE. “Somewhat motivated”students often expressed varied
levels of interest in engaging in the CURE and had mixed perceptions of the value of the CURE.
GOODWIN ET AL.9
|

While “somewhat motivated”students did not strongly dislike the CURE, they rarely reported
engaging in the class beyond what was required of them. “Amotivated”students perceived very
little value in the CURE and had little to no interest in doing more than what was required of
them to get their desired grade in the course.
We conducted a quality check of our coding assignments by dividing all transcripts among
researchers, who individually reread each interview and flagged any sections where they
questioned the coding assignment. Finally, we met to discuss flagged coding assignments, with
very few changes made to the previous coding decisions.
2.6 |Researcher expertise and reflexivity
All members of the research team, each who are included as authors on this work, were
unaffiliated with the study institution. The background of the researchers and work done
through additional components of this case study provided researchers with a deep understand-
ing of the study context. The lead researcher (ECG) who conducted the interviews and led the
analyses has familiarity with the SEA-PHAGES curriculum both as a student and as a teaching
assistant, and has experience designing and teaching independent CUREs outside of the
SEA-PHAGES curriculum. Undergraduate and postbaccalaureate researchers (JRC, VDP, HT)
assisted in interview coding and offered their collectively diverse perspectives as first- and
continuing-generation, and traditional- and nontraditionally-aged students. The senior
researcher (EES) has extensive experience in developing CUREs and in conducting research on
CURE instruction.
In an effort to understand our study context and collect additional data for our larger multi-
case analysis, researchers were present in CURE classrooms at different points throughout the
term. As we conducted interviews with students at the end of the term, participants had some
familiarity with the researchers and with the goals of the study. We used information from our
time spent understanding the study context and our prior experiences with SEA-PHAGES to
inform and provide validity evidence for our decisions and interpretations throughout our inter-
view analyses.
3|RESULTS
3.1 |Students vary in their motivation to engage in the CURE
Students frequently made statements in the interviews that revealed the factors that contributed
to their motivation (or lack thereof) to engage in the CURE. Codes within the Amotivation
theme described students who lacked value for the CURE or made it clear that their motivation
to participate was strictly externally regulated (i.e., compliance with course expectations to
achieve a certain grade). These codes included “Student did not enjoy course”(coded for 6 out
of 25 students), “Student had no interest in doing more than minimum course requirements”
(five students), and “CURE is not executed effectively to benefit students”(nine students,
Table 1). The second theme, Identified Extrinsic motivation, describes codes where students rec-
ognized the utility value of participating in the CURE, including codes such as “Experience was
generally beneficial for students”(13 students), “CURE was relevant for the student's profes-
sional future”(9 students), “CUREs provide career clarification”(11 students), and “CURE
10 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

makes research more accessible to students”(10 students, Table 1). Finally, the theme of Intrin-
sic motivation included codes such as “CURE project made the lab meaningful”(14 students),
“Student found the course enjoyable or interesting”(19 students), and “Student experienced
project ownership”(9 students, Table 1).
Guided by our motivation codes, we holistically assessed the overall motivation of each
interview participant regarding their autonomous drive to engage in the CURE. “Highly moti-
vated”students (n=10) made statements throughout their interview that demonstrated clear
Intrinsic and Identified Extrinsic motivation for the CURE. “Amotivated”students (n=6) dem-
onstrated very little Intrinsic motivation for the CURE, and frequently made statements that
indicated they lacked value for the CURE and did the minimum to comply with expectations of
the course. “Somewhat motivated”students (n=9) fell between these two ends of the spec-
trum. The two or three student representatives of each GTA often varied in their holistic moti-
vation for the CURE (Figure 2).
Despite the variability of student motivation even when taught by the same GTA, students
who experienced less intrinsic motivation to engage in the CURE often directly indicated that
their GTA was the single factor preventing them from experiencing higher levels of interest and
motivation in the lab. For example, two of GTA Orca's three students said they would have
really enjoyed the CURE if they had a positive and more supportive GTA. Two additional
TABLE 1 Themes related to student motivation to engage and invest in participating in the CURE.
Motivation-related themes Example student quote
Amotivation: Student is not motivated to engage in
the CURE, and doesn't see value in participating
or learning from the research experience due to
not enjoying course or the CURE not being
executed effectively.
“I absolutely dread going to lab. I used to like biology,
and I was on the microbiology track…[In lab] I'm
bored out of my mind, and I'm usually frustrated
because the GTA has an ‘interesting’way of
explaining protocols. Usually, we're all frustrated
and confused as to what we're supposed to be doing.
When I have a purpose in mind, or I know why we're
doing something, I enjoy it way more. I think that
[purpose] would have contributed to my overall
experience, if I actually had [understood the
purpose].”
Identified Extrinsic motivation: Student values the
utility of potential skills that can be gained from
participating in the CURE; values relevance to
their or other students' future careers/goals.
“Undergraduates are encouraged to participate in
research, and I'm personally trying to get into [a lab]
myself. So now to be able to confidently say that I
can function in the lab environment is important.
Just having the [research] experience in the first
place [was valuable], so you're not going into a
research lab and you've never seen or used a
micropipette before.”
Intrinsic motivation: Student is motivated to
participate in the CURE because student found
the course content or experience interesting, saw
meaning in their CURE project, and felt project
ownership or greater appreciation for the
experience.
“I love going to lab, honestly. It's definitely one of the
high points in my week just because I know that I get
to go in and experiment with something all hands-
on. It's very satisfactory, coming out of the lab
knowing that I've made progress with the research
that we're doing.”
Note: Quotes have been lightly edited for grammar and concision.
GOODWIN ET AL.11
|

students—a“somewhat motivated”student and an “amotivated”student taught by GTAs Wave
and Urchin, respectively, described separate incidents where the PhD-level lab coordinator was
called on to substitute in their classes for their GTAs. Both students indicated that the lab coor-
dinator conveyed far more excitement and clarity about the purpose of their experiments and
felt that if their regular GTA instructor had been similarly encouraging and informative, they
would have had a more enjoyable and beneficial experience in the class. One student explained:
The first thing that I want to do when I'm a teacher is make kids feel welcome and
excited to be here, and then learning can come…[So] it was really frustrating for me to
see the lack of commitment and professionalism and passion [our GTA] put into
teaching. And that definitely contributed to my overall experience of the lab….But
again, the idea of [the CURE], I liked a lot. I think if I had a different TA, I would have
loved the lab. —Somewhat motivated student, GTA: Wave.
These students appeared acutely aware that they lacked the support from their GTAs that
would be necessary to fully understand and benefit from the CURE.
3.2 |Highly motivated students are more likely to experience
Competence and autonomy and to perceive that their GTAs support
Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness
We coded student perceptions related to experiencing Competence,Autonomy, and Relatedness
in the CURE (Table 2). Student experiences of Competence (or lack thereof) related to their
understanding of the overall purpose of the class and the purpose of their daily lab experiments,
their perceptions that the course was appropriately challenging for an introductory biology lab
class, and their perception of gaining competence in lab skills or engaging in scientific processes
throughout the course. We coded that a student's GTA supported Competence when they
described their GTA discussing the purpose of the CURE and helping to contextualize their
daily lab procedures, facilitating collaboration and iteration, and generally providing effective
teaching and clear communication. Students who perceived that their GTAs did not support
Competence often described that their GTA failed to effectively provide these elements
(Table 2).
Students essentially had the same amount of control and Autonomy in the course: they were
able to choose where to collect their soil samples and how many samples to collect, as well as
to make choices related to troubleshooting and minor deviations from experimental protocols,
and to potentially 'name their phage' if they were successfully able to isolate one. However,
some students perceived they had relative control and Autonomy within the class, often because
they perceived independent responsibility and felt like the experimental decisions they were
able to make were meaningful. Other students felt constrained by the structure of the course
and felt they lacked individual Autonomy because of the limited importance of the few decisions
they were able to make (Table 2). GTAs who supported Autonomy encouraged students to make
independent decisions in their class, emphasized the impact of the areas of the experiments
where students experienced control, and facilitated independent work and troubleshooting by
“guiding”rather than “telling”students what to do in the class. On the other hand, GTAs who
did not support Autonomy tended to overexert their own control over their students' experi-
ments, by telling students exactly what to do and how to do it, and occasionally even
12 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

TABLE 2 Themes related to students' perceived Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness in the CURE and
the support or lack thereof from their GTA.
Basic needs themes Example student quote
COMPETENCE
Student experiences Competence: The student
perceives that they developed scientific
knowledge or skills, or they developed
understanding of the purpose of what they were
doing.
“I enjoyed coming to class and knowing exactly what I
was going to do because I had done it for weeks in
the past and I was able to do it more efficiently.
Every time I got more comfortable with the procedure
it made me understand [more]: when I first started, I
didn't know exactly what we were doing. But as we
repeated the project, we were able to understand.”
—Somewhat motivated student, GTA: Puffin
Student experiences lack of Competence: The
student perceives that they did not gain sufficient
scientific knowledge or skills, or that they did not
understand the purpose of their experiments or
the overall project.
“I was very confused until the very end [of the term],
when I was writing the lab report and I was able to
put everything together. Then I saw why each part
was necessary. But going into lab each day, I was
very confused as to why we were doing each step.”
—Highly motivated student, GTA: Krill
GTA supports Competence: Student perceives their
GTA to be an effective teacher and describes how
they helped the student gain more proficiency in
the lab.
“"If there was ever anything that [our GTA] wasn't
sure about, they took the time to look it up…They
found videos for us to watch, and articles, and stuff
like that if we were confused about bacteriophage
and what went on [in the CURE]. That was really
helpful…I don't think [our GTA] had to go find those
resources for us. It was cool that they took the time to
do that, as opposed to other TAs: if they don't
understand something, they're like, “Well, whatever.
You have to figure it out, and I don't.”—Highly
motivated student, GTA: Coral
GTA does not support Competence: Student
perceives their GTA was an ineffective teacher
and describes how they neglected to help the
student gain more proficiency in the lab.
“Our GTA was very nice, but never seemed to listen to
us. They just wanted to explain it [their way], and if
we didn't understand, it wasn't really their issue. It
was hard for us to figure out what we were supposed
to be doing, because they would tell us one thing, and
we would start doing that, and then they would tell
us another thing. It was very confusing at times.”—
Somewhat motivated student, GTA: Orca
AUTONOMY
Student experienced sufficient Autonomy: Student
perceived experiencing control over experiments
and outcomes/decisions.
“[It] felt like my own research experiment; everyone
was doing the same thing, but it was still very
different, and we were all getting different results. We
collected different soil samples, which made it feel
like our experiments were different. I had control over
it, especially with [our experimental progress],
because we could be on step two while someone else
is on step five, and that's okay.”—Somewhat
motivated student, GTA: Wave
(Continues)
GOODWIN ET AL.13
|

intervening in their students' experiments themselves, rather than letting their students carry
out the lab techniques independently (Table 2).
Instances of students experiencing Relatedness—a sense of community and comfort, both
with their classmates and with their GTA—were closely tied with their perceptions that their
GTA supported (or failed to support) Relatedness. Students perceived that their GTA supported
Relatedness in the class when GTAs made themselves available and approachable to students,
demonstrated their own investment in the course, put effort into making the course exciting
and engaging, and were receptive to diverse student needs (Table 2). These actions both
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Basic needs themes Example student quote
Student lacked Autonomy: Student felt they lacked
control and independence in their experiments.
“No, [we did not have autonomy] because we have to
do [specific] experiments and we're supposed to get
[specific] results. We got to choose measurements and
stuff, I guess sometimes, but everything was pretty
much ‘Read this, do that, you should get this and
then write your report on that.’”—Somewhat
motivated student, GTA: Puffin
GTA supports Autonomy: GTA guided and
encouraged students to come to figure things out
themselves.
“Our GTA is amazing. I knew if I didn't understand
something, I could go to them and they would
explain it to me in another way. They wouldn't just
straight-up give us the answer, they would help us.
Give us the tools to get the answer, which is pretty
good for me. I like learning that way.”—Highly
motivated student, GTA: Shell
GTA does not support Autonomy: GTA did not
facilitate students' independent troubleshooting,
skill-building, or learning.
“[Our GTA] wanted to make sure everybody was doing
everything correctly…. Sometimes, I think they would
get a little frustrated and just go in there and do it for
us really quick…But I think if they were looking to
provide the full benefits of a research-based course,
they should have been more explanatory, as opposed
to just going in and doing it.”—Amotivated student,
GTA: Kelp
RELATEDNESS
GTA supports Relatedness: GTA demonstrated
investment in the course, connected with
students, and created an environment to foster
student community and comfort within the lab.
“[Our GTA] always said to feel free to ask questions to
anybody, because we're all doing the same thing…if
we had a question, we were openly able to ask it, and
[the GTA] would direct us to other groups on the
same protocol. They wanted us to feel comfortable,
that it wasn't just me and my partner doing [the
experiment], but the whole class, and we should feel
comfortable asking questions to everybody.”—Highly
motivated student, GTA: Urchin
GTA does not support Relatedness: GTA
demonstrated behavior and/or an attitude that
also created an environment that made student
feel uncomfortable in the lab or asking questions.
“Our GTA seems like they don't want to be [in class] …
When their overall attitude is, ‘I don't want to be
here,’our attitude is going to be that as well.”
—Amotivated student, GTA: Urchin
Note: Quotes have been lightly edited for grammar and concision.
14 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

supported students' connection with their GTA and their sense of comfort, morale, and commu-
nity within the class. Students who felt their GTAs did not support Relatedness reported that
FIGURE 3 Student motivation level is related to experiences of SDT basic needs. Icons indicate “highly
motivated”(blue triangles, n=10), “somewhat motivated”(green squares, n=9), and “amotivated”(brown
circles, n=6) students. Icons in panels (a), (c), and (e) represent the average number of times, for students
within each motivation group, that researchers coded that the GTA was either supportive or unsupportive of
Competence (panel a), Relatedness (panel c), and Autonomy (panel e). In panels (b), (d), and (f), each icon
indicates the number of times each theme was coded within a single students' interview. Because Autonomy was
less frequently discussed in interviews, the y-axis in panel (f) represents a smaller range, compared to panels
(b) and (d). “Highly motivated”students more frequently discuss their GTAs' support for student Competence,
Relatedness, and Autonomy, while “somewhat motivated”and “amotivated”students more frequently discuss
their GTAs' lack of support.
GOODWIN ET AL.15
|

their GTA sometimes seemed distant or unapproachable, did not always have a positive atti-
tude, and did not seem invested in the course or their students (Table 2).
Discussions of the GTAs' support for Competency,Autonomy, and Relatedness came up fre-
quently in student interviews. As a proxy to gauge the degree to which students found their
TABLE 3 Themes related to experiencing essential CURE elements.
Perception of CURE
element Student quote
SCIENTIFIC TOOLS AND PRACTICES
Present “We used a lot of protocols and use different things like a centrifuge. It made me feel
like I kind of get to be a real scientist, getting to do these experiments.”—Highly
motivated student, GTA: Urchin
Limited “Honestly, the only things that I really know how to do are micropipette and maybe
a plaque assay…I don't think I learned a lot of scientific things. I could
micropipette if you asked me to, but that's about the extent of what I know how to
do.”—Amotivated student, GTA: Urchin
COLLABORATION
Present “Our TAs were really big on collaboration and trying to kind of figure things out for
yourself. They would help us with certain techniques and encouraged us to kind of
work with our peers before we came to them to try to figure out our own
answer.”—Highly motivated student, GTA: Coral
Limited “The only people I really talked to in that class were the people that were at my table,
and we kind of helped each other out. People were encouraged to talk to one
another, but nobody ever really did it. I think it would have been helpful if I could
have talked to [other groups].”—Somewhat motivated student, GTA: Kelp
ITERATION
Present “From my understanding, repeating trials over and over again to get your desired
result is exactly what research is and what we did.”—Somewhat motivated
student, GTA: Wave
Limited “If we did not find phage, we were able to continue collecting soil samples to try find
phage. [Eventually], we were given a (practice) phage. After that point we did not
have much opportunity to repeat the processes, just because of the timeframe.”—
Amotivated student, GTA: Wave
SCIENTIFICALLY RELEVANT NOVEL DISCOVERY
Present “It was really cool to learn what bacteriophage were and where they fit in to science
and medicine. Unlike other labs, the [CURE] created an incentive: if you were able
to get a phage and purify it, and do all the steps correctly, then you could be
contributing to something bigger.”—Highly motivated student, GTA: Coral
Limited “We were contributing to phage research in the [online] database, but at the same
time, there were so many other students who had already contributed phages. It
seemed like ours wasn't really going to be very significant, in comparison to all the
others.”—Highly motivated student, GTA: Wave
Absent “It mostly felt like we were imitating real research rather than just actually doing
research…it kind of just felt like something I would do in high school, that didn't
really contribute much.”—Amotivated student, GTA: Sand
Note: Quotes have been lightly edited for grammar and concision.
16 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

GTA supportive or unsupportive of Competency,Autonomy, and Relatedness, we considered the
number of times these codes were used in analyzing students' interviews, both by averaging
across each of the participants by motivation group (highly motivated, somewhat motivated
and amotivated) and at the level of the individual student (Figure 3). “Highly motivated”stu-
dents more frequently described instances of their GTA supporting their Competency than did
“somewhat motivated”and “amotivated”students—who were more likely to describe that their
GTA did not support their competence (Figure 3a, b). All the “highly motivated”students
described several times throughout their interviews that their GTA supported Relatedness, while
“amotivated”students were instead more likely to describe at least one instance where their
GTA did not support Relatedness (Figure 3c, d). Although experiences related to Autonomy
came up less frequently overall in the interviews, a similar pattern was observed: “highly moti-
vated”students were more likely to acknowledge that their GTA supported their autonomy,
while “amotivated”students more frequently described that their GTA did not support Auton-
omy (Figure 3e, f).
3.3 |Student motivation is associated with perceptions of
experiencing critical CURE components
Throughout the interviews, we asked each student about their perceptions of experiencing the
critical CURE elements of Scientific Practices,Collaboration,Iteration, and Relevant Discovery.
Most students reported using multiple scientific tools and practices throughout the term (22 of
25 students), experiencing sufficient collaboration (18 students), and experiencing sufficient
iteration (18 students, Table 3). The remainder of the students felt that their experiences of
using scientific tools and practices, as well as experiencing collaboration and iteration, were
limited and insufficient within the course. In contrast, only 10 students believed that their
CURE project had definite potential for Relevant Discovery, with an additional eight who
acknowledged that Relevant Discovery within their project was perhaps present but very limited.
Seven students—over a quarter of our interview participants—felt that the project lacked any
potential for Relevant Discovery at all (Table 3).
To explore how perceptions of CURE elements relate to student motivation, we compared the
number of students in each motivation group who reported experiencing each element (Figure 4).
The same pattern was observed for each CURE element: as motivation level decreased, from the
“highly motivated”to the “somewhat motivated”to the “amotivated”group, the proportion of
each student group who reported that the CURE was deficient in a critical element increased
(Figure 4). This pattern was especially striking for the element of Relevant Discovery: while only
three of the ten “highly motivated”students perceived that the potential for Relevant Discovery
was limited or absent from their course, all six of the “amotivated”students reported that the
course had limited to no potential for Relevant Discovery (Figure 4).
In addition to asking students about the potential for Relevant Discovery in the CURE, we
asked students how the “outcome”of their CURE projects impacted their feelings about the
course. Students experienced one of two possible research outcomes: they either successfully
found and isolated their own phage, or instead had to adopt a “practice”phage after failing to
isolate their own phage. Eleven students reported that failing to find their own phage and
instead adopting a practice phage decreased their Intrinsic motivation in the course—these stu-
dents were less interested or excited to engage in the course, often because they felt less owner-
ship or knew that they no longer had the potential to make a relevant scientific contribution
GOODWIN ET AL.17
|

(Table 4). On the other hand, nine students described that their experience of successfully find-
ing their own phage increased their Intrinsic motivation—often dramatically improving their
overall experience in the course, by increasing their perceptions of relevance and ownership
(Table 4). Only two students felt that their Intrinsic motivation for the CURE was not impacted
by finding—or failing to find—a phage (Table 4). While subsets of students in the “highly
motivated,”“somewhat motivated,”and “amotivated”groups all reported that adopting a phage
decreased their intrinsic motivation, and finding a phage increased their intrinsic motivation,
students in the “highly motivated”group were more likely to report that finding a phage
increased their intrinsic motivation for the course (Figure 5).
FIGURE 4 Student motivation is related to perceptions of experiencing critical CURE components. As
compared to both somewhat motivated (n=9) and amotivated (n=6) students, highly motivated students
(n=10) appear more likely to recognize that they used multiple Scientific Practices (panel a), experienced
sufficient Collaboration (panel b), experienced sufficient Iteration (panel c) and that their project had potential
for Relevant Discovery (panel d).
18 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

It is critical to note that motivation often impacted the actual experiences of students in the
course, rather than just their perceptions of the course. For example, while all students had
opportunities to collect extra soil samples and both stay longer in class during scheduled class
time or to come in during open lab hours to repeat experiments, it was often the “highly moti-
vated”students who described taking advantage of these opportunities. These students were the
most invested in the course and willing to put effort in beyond the minimum required to get a
satisfactory grade. Consequentially, they often engaged in more Iteration than other students,
and subsequently also had a much higher likelihood of successfully discovering and isolating a
novel phage—as illustrated in the quote below:
We would mess up [our experiments], so it was a trial and error for every single
lab. But we didn't ever really feel bad, we never got discouraged, because our TA
was very encouraging. Every time I messed up, they're like, “It's okay. Just start
over…”My partner and I chose to repeat [certain experiments] just in case some-
thing went wrong…We were down to the wire about finding [a phage] or else we
would have to adopt [the practice phage] and we really didn't want to adopt one.
At one point we were running like seven samples at one time. —Highly motivated
student, GTA: Shell.
TABLE 4 Student outcomes of finding a novel phage or adopting a practice phage often impacted their
intrinsic motivation in the course.
Codes related to experience of finding a novel
phage Example quote
Adopting a practice phage decreased Intrinsic
motivation: Adopting a practice phage, rather
than finding one's own, made the CURE feel less
scientifically relevant, less interesting, less
important, or decreased feelings of ownership.
“When [I was working with my own] soil sample, I
was excited, because I [knew we collected it near] a
food source. I was excited to see how many phages
are by food sources, and if it's similar to other places
that have food sources. When it came to using the
[class practice] phage, I didn't know where it was
from, so I didn't really get to have that connection
with [the phage].”—Highly motivated student, GTA:
Urchin
Finding a novel phage increased Intrinsic
motivation: Finding a phage made the CURE feel
relevant, exciting, and increased student
investment and ownership in the class.
“[The CURE is] cool too, because we get to name [the
phage] and it's a lot more exciting. It makes me feel
more compassionate about the lab, because I found
my own phage and I'm so connected to it. [The effort
of finding a phage] made me more interested in the
lab.”—Highly motivated student, GTA: Shell
Outcome did not impact student motivation:
Student reported that their motivation and
feelings about the class were not significantly
impacted by either finding a novel phage or
being given a practice phage.
“I don't think [my class experience would be different if
I found a phage], just because I wouldn't really be
doing anything with it afterwards. I think just
performing the experiments and knowing what could
happen with what people have discovered is enough
for me. I don't think that actually discovering [a
phage] would have made a difference.—Highly
motivated student, GTA: Krill
Note: Quotes have been lightly edited for grammar and concision.
GOODWIN ET AL.19
|

While high motivation and subsequently increased iteration often led to students successfully iso-
lating a phage, other students reported that finding a phage early in the course (without putting
much effort in) also boosted their intrinsic enjoyment of the course, though that initial excitement
was not necessarily enough to keep students excited and engaged throughout the course:
I would have not enjoyed the class that much [if I did not find a phage]. There was a little
bit of satisfaction in finding a phage the first week. It was like “Yeah, we did it!”Because our
TA was very much, “I don't think anyone's going to find phage,”because [Sand] had bad experi-
ences in the past with students not finding phage. And then our group found one the first week,
so kind of exciting. But as the weeks progressed, our phage got weaker or something, and the
lab got harder. I kind of accepted that, but I think that if I didn't find a phage, it probably would
have been not an enjoyable experience overall. —Amotivated student, GTA: Sand.
As demonstrated in both quotes above, the way GTAs framed and supported the elements
of Iteration and Relevant Discovery impacted students' perceptions of and motivation to engage
in these critical experiences of the CURE.
4|DISCUSSION
Student experiences in GTA-taught courses are impacted by a multitude of complex factors,
including student variables (knowledge, retention, and interest), GTA variables (attitudes,
beliefs, and pedagogical actions), and the contextual variables specific to the institution and
course (Reeves et al., 2016). Though previous research has demonstrated that instructor peda-
gogy impacts student attitudes in a course, initial attitudes of incoming students in a class are
the most significant predictor of end-of-course student attitudes (Sonnert et al., 2015),
suggesting that some students will likely experience high or low motivation for a course
FIGURE 5 Discovering a novel phage may be related to student motivation. “Highly motivated”students
(n=10) were more likely than “somewhat motivated”(n=6) or “amotivated”students (n=6) to report that
successfully finding a novel bacteriophage of their own (rather than adopting a stock phage to use while
completing the term's activities) increased their intrinsic motivation in the CURE. Note that while there were
nine “somewhat motivated”students in our study, three did not clearly express if the outcome of their projects
impacted their motivation.
20 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

regardless of their GTA. Our findings corroborate this, as we observed that students of the same
GTA varied in their autonomous motivation (Figure 2), indicating that GTA-independent vari-
ables likely influence student motivation. However, our data also demonstrate that for certain
students, the influence of individual GTAs could be the “make-or-break”factor for their stu-
dents' enjoyment of the CURE, and their autonomous motivation to engage in the CURE.
4.1 |Unsupportive GTAs can prevent students from experiencing
high autonomous motivation
As expected, our results align with the SDT framework outlined in Figure 1: students who per-
ceive that their GTAs support their Competence,Relatedness,and Autonomy were more autono-
mously motivated to engage in the CURE (Figure 3). These findings align with previous work
showing that instructors who provide strong social support for their students (i.e., Relatedness)
positively impact their students' motivation, as well as other affective learning outcomes
(Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005; Cornelius-White, 2007; Seidel & Tanner, 2013; Baker &
Goodboy, 2018). While “somewhat motivated”and “amotivated”students often still described
instances where they recognized that their GTA supported their Competence,Autonomy,or
Relatedness, these students were more likely than “highly motivated students”to describe
instances of their GTA failing to support their Competence,Autonomy,orRelatedness (Figure 3).
We propose that GTAs likely influence students' potential to experience high autonomous moti-
vation in a CURE, in that if students perceive that their GTA is actively unsupportive of these
elements, it may bar students from experiencing high autonomous motivation. Indeed, several
“somewhat motivated”and “amotivated”students specifically indicated that the lack of support
from their GTA was the largest barrier to having a more enjoyable or beneficial experience in
the lab.
Failing to provide support for students' Autonomy,Competence, and Relatedness not only
prevents students from fully enjoying or engaging in the CURE but may also be detrimental to
student success. For example, a study of 897 introductory biology students taught by six differ-
ent instructors found a correlation between higher self-reported anxiety and lower student rat-
ings of their instructor's support in the classroom (Schussler et al., 2021). Students in this study
often justified their instructor's support (or lack thereof) with explanations the authors refer to
as “relational”and “pedagogical”support (Schussler et al., 2021)—these themes closely align
with the concepts of Relatedness and Competency. Instructors who fail to provide such supports
may even be inducing a biological stress response in their students: a study of undergraduates
conducting a puzzle-solving activity under the guidance of autonomy-supportive or
unsupportive (i.e., “controlling”) teachers revealed that students with autonomy-supportive
instructors had decreased cortisol levels. Students with controlling teachers had elevated corti-
sol levels, as one would expect to experience in high-stress environments (Reeve &
Tseng, 2011). Regardless of instructor type (GTA or PhD-level faculty) and context (CURE or
otherwise), instructors who fail to support these elements are likely to create more stressful
learning environments for their students.
The increased complexity of a CURE and the fact that GTAs are often novice researchers
and teachers may manifest an instructional context where GTAs are ill-prepared to support
their students—future studies could directly explore this possibility. Regardless, our findings
demonstrate that some GTAs of CUREs are failing to support their students' Autonomy,Compe-
tence, and Relatedness, thereby likely preventing some students from experiencing higher levels
GOODWIN ET AL.21
|

of autonomous motivation to engage in the CURE—an outcome likely to result in less effort,
engagement, and lower affective and academic outcomes for their students (Howard
et al., 2021).
4.2 |Student motivation may determine the extent to which students
perceive and experience essential CURE elements
We found that “highly motivated”students in the CURE were more likely to both engage in
critical CURE elements and to perceive that these elements were sufficiently present in the
course (Figure 4). We hypothesize that “highly motivated”students are consequentially more
likely to benefit from participating in a CURE because they engage the most with the research
elements that the CURE model is designed to provide (Auchincloss et al., 2014). On the other
hand, “somewhat”and “amotivated”students, who are less likely to perceive and experience
the essential elements of a CURE, may not reap the same benefits of participating in a course-
based research experience. In offering CUREs, we may, therefore, only be providing a genera-
tive research experience to a fraction of the students in the class.
4.3 |Could unsupportive GTAs perpetuate inequities in which groups
of students benefit from participating in a CURE?
Guided by our data, we propose that GTAs can act as gatekeepers for some students in develop-
ing autonomous motivation in a CURE, and in doing so also impact the probability of students
perceiving that they have experienced the elements essential to a CURE (Figure 6). Further-
more, students who enter the course with high scientific cultural capital may experience high
motivation and benefit from the CURE regardless of the influences of their GTA, because such
FIGURE 6 Proposed model of GTA-mediated experiences for students in a CURE. A student's autonomous
motivation to engage in a CURE may be independent of their GTA, especially for students who begin the class
with higher scientific capital, who are then likely to be highly motivated in the CURE (represented by path *).
For other students, GTAs serve as “gatekeepers”to developing autonomous motivation: while students who
perceive that their GTA is supportive may or may not consequently experience high autonomous motivation in
the CURE, students who perceive their GTA is unsupportive are unlikely to experience high autonomous
motivation. Students who ultimately experience low autonomous motivation in the class are unlikely to
recognize they have experienced critical CURE elements.
22 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

students may already have high Identified Extrinsic motivation and knowledge and appreciation
of the potential benefits of participating in research experiences (Cooper et al., 2021, Figure 6).
Previous research has found that perceiving one's instructor as supportive is particularly
impactful in increasing motivation for students who begin the class with low initial autono-
mous motivation (Black & Deci, 2000). Therefore, while unsupportive GTAs likely create
unpleasant experiences for all students, these GTAs may be particularly detrimental for stu-
dents who begin the semester with lower autonomous motivation. First-generation college stu-
dents and students from nondominant groups often have lower scientific self-efficacy and
awareness of the potential value of scientific research experiences than their represented
peers—factors that contribute to lower autonomous motivation (Jacobs, 2005; Hernandez
et al., 2013; Bangera & Brownell, 2014). This pattern could be explained by the model of com-
munity cultural wealth: traditional scientific and educational systems were designed to align
with the cultural capital developed in students of privileged, dominant groups, and these sys-
tems fail to leverage the cultural knowledge of students from nondominant groups
(Yosso, 2005). First-generation students and students from nondominant groups therefore may
need specific supports to succeed and persist in STEM fields. Quality mentorship has already
been identified as an important factor in developing the scientific self-efficacy, identity, and
values for underrepresented students participating in apprentice-based research experiences
(Estrada et al., 2018). It is therefore likely that high-quality support from science instructors
(including GTAs), will play a pivotal role in providing an equitable and supported experience
for first-generation and underrepresented students. Conversely, being taught by an
unsupportive instructor could stunt the development of Identified Extrinsic and Intrinsic motiva-
tion for the CURE, resulting in students failing to autonomously engage and fully benefit from
a CURE experience (Figure 6).
4.4 |Antithetical to the ideal CURE scenario, limited perceptions of
Relevant Discovery and experiences of “failure”dampened students'
intrinsic motivation
Emerging research suggests that experiencing failure in the context of participating in a CURE
can provide a meaningful, productive, and motivating experience (Gin et al., 2018; Goodwin
et al., 2021). However, students in this study reported that the outcome of their experiments—
either finding or failing to find a phage—had significant impacts on their intrinsic motivation
toward the course, such that 11 of the 25 students failed to successfully isolate their own novel
phage and reported that this failure negatively impacted their intrinsic motivation, while nine
students who found a phage reported that it increased their intrinsic motivation (Figure 5). Pre-
vious work has found that experiences of failure in a CURE are particularly powerful in the
context of Relevant Discovery: because students are attempting to address a novel and relevant
research question, students perceive failing to answer that question as a legitimate scientific
outcome, while failing in the more structured contexts of traditional laboratory courses may
simply feel academically defeating (Goodwin et al., 2021). However, 15 of the 25 students in the
current study perceived that Relevant Discovery was a limited or completely absent element of
their course (Figure 4). Relevant Discovery is the element that distinguishes a CURE from tradi-
tional and inquiry-style laboratory courses, where students often still have opportunities to
experience Scientific Practices, Collaboration, and Iteration (Auchincloss et al., 2014; Cooper
et al., 2019; Goodwin et al., 2021). Therefore, in a scenario where students perceive that the
GOODWIN ET AL.23
|

Relevant Discovery of their CURE is very limited, students may be interpreting an experience of
failure more as they would if they were in a traditional laboratory course. “Somewhat moti-
vated”and “amotivated”students were the most likely to fail to perceive Relevant Discovery
(Figure 4d) and to report that their intrinsic motivation was negatively impacted by their ulti-
mate failure to find a phage (Figure 5), providing further evidence that students with lower
autonomous motivation are less likely to experience the critical CURE element of Relevant Dis-
covery (Figure 6).
As education researchers, we concur with several of the students' assessments that Relevant
Discovery in the CURE was limited—perhaps to the point of being absent. The students who
were successful with their phage discovery contributed the morphological description of the
phage to a large online database without the accompanying genomic information that might
make the discovery more accessible and relevant to other researchers. Furthermore, the host
bacterium that the phage could infect has no known medical or scientific relevance. This limita-
tion will likely garner less buy-in from students than a CURE with a more obvious broader
impact. There is wide variation in implementation of the SEA-PHAGES curriculum—the full
implementation of this curriculum spans two terms and includes bioinformatic analyses, and
some students may have the opportunity to present their work at an annual SEA-PHAGES
research symposium, at regional and national meetings, and occasionally through peer-
reviewed publications (Jordan et al., 2014). However, many institutions do not have the funding
or the logistical capacity to provide this full experience for students and may therefore engage
students in smaller parts of the overall curriculum, as is feasible. There is evidence of positive
student outcomes from participating both in the full SEA-PHAGES curriculum (Jordan
et al., 2014; Hanauer et al., 2017), and in modified one-semester versions where students only
participate in the phage discovery portion of the course (Staub et al., 2016), as in our study.
Limited or absent presence of the element of Relevant Discovery is perhaps a potential vulnera-
bility of the SEA-PHAGES curriculum, and the extent to which this element exists across the
various contexts in which the SEA-PHAGES curriculum is used should be further explored. If
Relevant Discovery is insufficiently integrated into the curriculum, we may be offering students
an experience more similar to an advanced inquiry course rather than a CURE (Auchincloss
et al., 2014; Goodwin et al., 2021). Regardless of the classification of this curriculum as an
inquiry or a CURE, it is clear that there are positive outcomes for numerous students who expe-
rience the SEA-PHAGES curriculum, and researchers and educators should continue the ongo-
ing discussions regarding the merits of both of these experiences for students (Cooper
et al., 2019; Goodwin et al., 2021).
4.5 |Limitations
We conducted this study to understand the impacts that individual GTAs could have on their
students in the context of the widely implemented SEA-PHAGES CURE curriculum a large
research institution in the Pacific Northwest. As a qualitative study with 25 student partici-
pants, with two to three students per instructor, we do not expect that we have fully represented
the experiences of all students even within our single CURE study context. We anticipate that
different CURE contexts would result in different dynamics between students and their GTAs:
for example, initial student motivation is likely to be different in upper-division courses that
students opt into rather than a required introductory biology lab. Furthermore, universities that
integrate independent CUREs rather than network CUREs may find it easier to establish the
24 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

“broader relevance”of their courses, as the research questions in independent CUREs often
align with a faculty member's research (Shortlidge et al., 2017). In these cases, GTA instructors
may be conducting graduate research that aligns with the CURE they are teaching, and the
added familiarity GTAs would likely have with the research background may make it easier to
support students in the CURE. Further work could explore the efficacy and capability of GTAs
to support their students in these additional CURE contexts.
4.6 |Implications and suggestions for GTA-taught CUREs
This work represents one study unit of a three-part phenomenological exploration of the experi-
ences of GTAs and their students in a single CURE context. Another unit of this study explored
variations in how GTAs perceived their roles as a mentor in a CURE. We reported that some
GTAs may prioritize providing research support over emotional support to students, while
others may focus solely on “content delivery”, neglecting mentorship roles in the CURE
(Goodwin, Cary, & Shortlidge, 2021). In a second unit of this study, we explored course-wide
patterns between students' experiences and their GTA, demonstrating that GTAs influence stu-
dent perceptions of the classroom environment, the CURE elements they engage in, and the
purpose of the CURE (Goodwin et al., 2022). This current study offers an exploration of how
GTAs with the same professional development experiences, and in the same instructional con-
text, still provide different levels of mentorship and support, resulting in varying perceptions
and experiences by students in the “same”CURE.
Our work demonstrates that when students perceive that a GTA is supportive, it can impact
students' autonomous motivation and experience with essential CURE elements. Faculty work-
ing with GTAs who teach CUREs should be cognizant of the breadth of support students may
or may not receive in each class and be conscientious of the possibility that CUREs taught by
GTAs may not successfully engage students in the expected elements that define a CURE expe-
rience. Such outcomes could be particularly detrimental for students who enter the class with
lower levels of motivation to engage in research.
Efficacy of GTA-taught CUREs may rely on GTAs with the capacity to support their stu-
dents' Competence,Autonomy, and Relatedness, in addition to the ability to mentor their stu-
dents through research projects. To address this, we provide the following suggestions for
optimizing training and professional development specifically for CURE GTAs, which are
intended to indirectly (suggestions one through three) and directly (suggestion four) bolster a
GTAs ability to enhance students' experiences of Competence,Autonomy, and Relatedness.
1. Supporting Competence: Training should include technical training on CURE content and
logistics (e.g., use of lab equipment, experimental design), and strategies for teaching techni-
cal aspects of the CURE to students.
2. Supporting Autonomy and Relatedness: Training should include fostering positive mentor-
ship strategies, as high-quality research mentorship is linked to student motivation and per-
sistence in STEM (Haeger & Fresquez, 2016; Estrada et al., 2018; Limeri et al., 2019).
3. Supporting Relatedness: Training should include equity and inclusion-centered research
mentoring curricula, such as that of the “Entering Mentoring”program (Pfund et al., 2015).
This is particularly important given that a major intention of CUREs is to mitigate the ineq-
uities for minoritized students in access to traditional research apprenticeships.
GOODWIN ET AL.25
|

4. GTAs should be prompted to consider how their actions, attitudes, and language impacts
their students' Competence, Autonomy, and connections with their GTA and other students
(Relatedness). For example, GTA training could include discussions or activities around the
questions below:
a. Supporting Competence: Motivation is optimized when we are facing tasks that are chal-
lenging, but also have the appropriate skillset and support to take on those challenges. In
other words, we want students to face challenges and experience struggle in our classes,
but we do not want students to feel lost or unsupported such that they are unsuccessful
in their research. What strategies could you use to help students strike that balance in
your course?
b. Supporting Autonomy: One goal of this class is to develop students' autonomy as a
researcher. What are specific parts of the course curriculum or student experiments/lab
activities that give students some level of control and autonomy to make their own
choices? What could you do or say to help students optimize their own autonomy and
highlight how their individual decisions impact their research outcomes?
c. Supporting Relatedness: Student motivation and experiences in this class are impacted by
their perceptions of the classroom environment and their connections to their instructor
and other students. What are things you (or other instructors) might do or say that
would make students feel unconnected or comfortable in the classroom? What strategies
might you use to help your students feel connected and comfortable with you and their
classmates?
Educators implementing the SEA-PHAGES CURE would also benefit from considering how
the element of Relevant Discovery is presented in their course and reflect on opportunities to fur-
ther develop this aspect of the CURE for their students. For example, instructors could perhaps
partner with microbiologists or bacteriophage researchers at their institution to align their
implementation of the SEA-PHAGES curriculum with the goals of a local faculty member's
research program or find other ways for students to interact with scientists conducting bacterio-
phage research.
Our research builds on the vast body of work addressing the importance of supporting the
elements of Competence,Autonomy, and Relatedness in efforts to foster student motivation.
Future research may focus on considering how to provide assistance and training for GTAs in
order to develop GTA capacity and efficacy in teaching CUREs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you to the undergraduate student participants who generously shared their experiences
and perspectives with us for this work. This work would not be possible without the substantial
assistance from the faculty instructor and the lab coordinator associated with the CURE, who
were critical in facilitating our case study, as well as Kelly McDonald who was instrumental in
helping with our pilot studies. This material is based upon work supported by a Faculty
Enhancement Award (EES, 2019-2021, PSU) and the National Science Foundation Graduate
Research Fellowship Program (ECG; Fellow ID No. 2018265867). Any opinions, findings, con-
clusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
26 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

ORCID
Emma Crystal Goodwin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3627-0291
Erin Elizabeth Shortlidge https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8753-1178
REFERENCES
Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I., Lawrie, G.,
McLinn, C. M., Pelaez, N., Rowland, S., Towns, M., Trautmann, N. M., Varma-Nelson, P., Weston, T. J., &
Dolan, E. L. (2014). As of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE—Life
Sciences Education,13(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004
Baker, J. P., & Goodboy, A. K. (2018). Students' self-determination as a consequence of instructor misbehaviors.
Communication Research Reports,35(1), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1366305
Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific
research more inclusive. CBE—Life Sciences Education,13(4), 602–606. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-
0099
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motiva-
tion on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education,84(6), 740–
756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
Brewer, C., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to change. American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Brownell, S. E., Hekmat-Scafe, D. S., Singla, V., Chandler Seawell, P., Conklin Imam, J. F., Eddy, S. L.,
Stearns, T., & 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 Sciences Educa-
tion,14(2), ar21. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-05-0092
Brownell, S. E., & Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of
course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Studies in Higher Education,
40(3), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234
Brownell, S. E., Kloser, M. J., Fukami, T., & Shavelson, R. (2012). Undergraduate biology lab courses: Comparing
the impact of traditionally based "cookbook"and authentic research-based courses on student lab experi-
ences. Journal of College Science Teaching,41(4), 36.
Carpi, A., Ronan, D. M., Falconer, H. M., & Lents, N. H. (2017). Cultivating minority scientists: Undergraduate
research increases self-efficacy and career ambitions for underrepresented students in STEM. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching,54(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21341
Cohen, D., & Crabtree, B. (2006). Qualitative research guidelines project.http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-
3629.html
Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y.-G., & Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career
STEM Scholars' College teaching self-efficacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education,17(1), ar14.
Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., & Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel dis-
coveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE. CBE—Life Sciences Educa-
tion,18(4), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113
Cooper, K. M., Cala, J. M., & Brownell, S. E. (2021). Cultural capital in undergraduate research: An exploration
of how biology students operationalize knowledge to access research experiences at a large, public research-
intensive institution. International Journal of STEM Education,8(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-
00265-w
Cooper, K. M., Knope, M. L., Munstermann, M. J., & 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. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education,21(3), 60. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.
v21i3.2157
Cooper, K. M., Soneral, P. A. G., & 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. Journal of Microbiol-
ogy & Biology Education,18(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1287
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research,77(1), 113–143. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298563
GOODWIN ET AL.27
|

Corwin, L. A., Graham, M. J., & Dolan, E. L. (2015). Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences:
An agenda for future research and evaluation. CBE—Life Sciences Education,14(1), es1. https://doi.org/10.
1187/cbe.14-10-0167
Corwin, L. A., Runyon, C. R., Ghanem, E., Sandy, M., Clark, G., Palmer, G. C., Reichler, S., Rodenbusch, S. E., &
Dolan, E. L. (2018). Effects of discovery, iteration, and collaboration in laboratory courses on Undergradu-
ates' research career intentions fully mediated by student ownership. CBE—Life Sciences Education,17(2),
ar20. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-07-0141
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Eagan, M. K., Hurtado, S., Chang, M. J., Garcia, G. A., Herrera, F. A., & Garibay, J. C. (2013). Making a differ-
ence in science education: The impact of undergraduate research programs. American Educational Research
Journal,50(4), 683–713. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213482038
Estrada, M., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2018). A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and
research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers. CBE—Life Sciences Education,
17(1), ar9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066
Gin, L. E., Rowland, A. A., Steinwand, B., Bruno, J., & Corwin, L. A. (2018). Students who fail to achieve
predefined research goals may still experience many positive outcomes as a result of CURE participation.
CBE—Life Sciences Education,17(4), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-03-0036
Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science motivation questionnaire II:
Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,48(10),
1159–1176. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20442
Goodwin, E. C., Anokhin, V., Gray, M. J., Zajic, D. E., Podrabsky, J. E., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2021). Is this science?
Students' experiences of failure make a research-based course feel authentic. CBE—Life Sciences Education,
20(1), ar10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-07-0149
Goodwin, E. C., Cao, J. N., Fletcher, M., Flaiban, J. L., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2018). Catching the wave: Are biology
graduate students on board with evidence-based teaching? CBE—Life Sciences Education,17(3), ar43.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0281
Goodwin, E. C., Cary, J. R., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2021). Enthusiastic but inconsistent: Graduate teaching Assis-
tants' perceptions of their role in the CURE classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education,20(4), ar66. https://
doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-04-0106
Goodwin, E. C., Cary, J. R., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2022). Not the same CURE: Student experiences in course-based
undergraduate research experiences vary by graduate teaching assistant. PLoS One,17(9), e0275313. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275313
Gormally, C., Sullivan, C. S., & Szeinbaum, N. (2016). Uncovering barriers to teaching assistants (TAs)
implementing inquiry teaching: Inconsistent facilitation techniques, student resistance, and reluctance
to share control over learning with students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education,17(2),
215–224.
Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A.-B., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persis-
tence of college students in STEM. Science,341(6153), 1455–1456. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1240487
Haeger, H., & Fresquez, C. (2016). Mentoring for inclusion: The impact of mentoring on undergraduate researchers
in the sciences. CBE—Life Sciences Education,15(3), ar36. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0016
Hagay, G., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2015). A strategy for incorporating students' interests into the high-school
science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,52(7), 949–978. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.
21228
Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., Sea-Phages, Betancur, L., Bobrownicki, A., Cresawn, S. G., Garlena, R. A., Jacobs-
Sera, D., Kaufmann, N., Pope, W. H., Russell, D. A., Jacobs, W. R., Sivanathan, V., Asai, D. J., &
Hatfull, G. F. (2017). An inclusive research education community (iREC): Impact of the SEA-PHAGES pro-
gram on research outcomes and student learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,114(51),
13531–13536. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718188115
Harrison, M., Dunbar, D., Ratmansky, L., Boyd, K., & Lopatto, D. (2011). Classroom-based science research at
the introductory level: Changes in career choices and attitude. CBE—Life Sciences Education,10(3), 279–286.
https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-12-0151
28 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

Heim, A. B., & Holt, E. A. (2019). Benefits and challenges of instructing introductory biology course-based under-
graduate research experiences (CUREs) as perceived by graduate teaching assistants. CBE—Life Sciences
Education,18(3), ar43. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-09-0193
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional
practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,48(8), 952–984.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20439
Hernandez, P. R., Schultz, P. W., Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., & Chance, R. C. (2013). Sustaining optimal motiva-
tion: A longitudinal analysis of interventions to broaden participation of underrepresented students in
STEM. Journal of Educational Psychology,105(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029691
Howard, J. L., Bureau, J., Guay, F., Chong, J. X. Y., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated out-
comes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science,16(6), 1300–
1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789
Indorf, J. L., Weremijewicz, J., Janos, D. P., & Gaines, M. S. (2019). Adding authenticity to inquiry in a first-year,
research-based, biology laboratory course. CBE—Life Sciences Education,18(3), ar38. https://doi.org/10.
1187/cbe.18-07-0126
Ing, M., Burnette, J. M., Azzam, T., & Wessler, S. R. (2021). Participation in a course-based undergraduate
research experience results in higher grades in the companion lecture course. Educational Researcher,50(4),
205–214. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20968097
Jacobs, J. E. (2005). Twenty-five years of research on gender and ethnic differences in math and science career
choices: What have we learned? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,2005(110), 85–94.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.151
Jones, M. G., Corin, E. N., Andre, T., Childers, G. M., & Stevens, V. (2017). Factors contributing to lifelong sci-
ence learning: Amateur astronomers and birders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,54(3), 412–433.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21371
Jordan, T. C., Burnett, S. H., Carson, S., Caruso, S. M., Clase, K., DeJong, R. J., Dennehy, J. J., Denver, D. R.,
Dunbar, D., Elgin, S. C. R., Findley, A. M., Gissendanner, C. R., Golebiewska, U. P., Guild, N.,
Hartzog, G. A., Grillo, W. H., Hollowell, G. P., Hughes, L. E., Johnson, A., …Hatfull, G. F. (2014). A broadly
implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for first-year undergraduate students.
MBio,5(1), e01051–e01013. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01051-13
Kurdziel, J. P., Turner, J. A., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2003). Graduate teaching assistants and inquiry-based
instruction: Implications for graduate teaching assistant training. Journal of Chemical Education,80(10),
1206. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed080p1206
Lane, A. K., Hardison, C., Simon, A., & Andrews, T. C. (2019). A model of the factors influencing teaching iden-
tity among life sciences doctoral students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,56(2), 141–162. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tea.21473
Laursen, S., Hunter, A.-B., Seymour, E., Thiry, H., & Melton, G. (2010). Undergraduate research in the sciences:
Engaging students in real science. Wiley.
Limeri, L. B., Asif, M. Z., Bridges, B. H. T., Esparza, D., Tuma, T. T., Sanders, D., Morrison, A. J., Rao, P.,
Harsh, J. A., Maltese, A. V., & Dolan, E. L. (2019). “Where's my Mentor?!”characterizing negative mentoring
experiences in undergraduate life science research. CBE—Life Sciences Education,18(4), ar61. https://doi.
org/10.1187/cbe.19-02-0036
Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning.
CBE—Life Sciences Education,6(4), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039
Luft, J. A., Kurdziel, J. P., Roehrig, G. H., & Turner, J. (2004). Growing a garden without water: Graduate teach-
ing assistants in introductory science laboratories at a doctoral/research university. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching,41(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20004
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & medicine. (2015). Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the
Undergraduate Curriculum: Report of a Convocation. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/
21851
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for
STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/
24622
GOODWIN ET AL.29
|

Olimpo, J. T., Fisher, G. R., & DeChenne-Peters, S. E. (2016). Development and evaluation of the Tigriopus
course-based undergraduate research experience: Impacts on Students' content knowledge, attitudes, and
motivation in a majors introductory biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education,15(4), ar72. https://doi.
org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0228
Olson, S., & 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 Office of
the President.
Pfund,C.,Branchaw,J.L.,&Handelsman,J.(2015).Entering Mentoring (Revised ed. edition). W. H.
Freeman.
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Cortisol reactivity to a teacher's motivating style: The biology of being con-
trolled versus supporting autonomy. Motivation and Emotion,35(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-
011-9204-2
Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., & Wischusen, E. W.
(2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and
research. CBE—Life Sciences Education,15(2), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225
Reeves, T. D., Warner, D. M., Ludlow, L. H., & O'Connor, C. M. (2018). Pathways over time: Functional geno-
mics research in an introductory laboratory course. CBE—Life Sciences Education,17(1), ar1. https://doi.org/
10.1187/cbe.17-01-0012
Robnett, R. D., Chemers, M. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2015). Longitudinal associations among undergraduates'
research experience, self-efficacy, and identity: Research experience, self-efficacy, and identity. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching,52(6), 847–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21221
Rodenbusch, S. E., Hernandez, P. R., Simmons, S. L., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Early engagement in course-based
research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees.
CBE—Life Sciences Education,15(2), ar20. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117
Rosenthal, R. (1965). The volunteer subject. Human Relations,18(4), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001872676501800407
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55(1), 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective:
Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,61, 101860.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Schussler, E. E., Read, Q., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K., & Ferzli, M. (2015). Preparing biology graduate teaching
assistants for their roles as instructors: An assessment of institutional approaches. CBE—Life Sciences Educa-
tion,14(3), ar31.
Schussler, E. E., Weatherton, M., Chen Musgrove, M. M., Brigati, J. R., & England, B. J. (2021). Student percep-
tions of instructor supportiveness: What characteristics make a difference? CBE—Life Sciences Education,
20(2), ar29. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-10-0238
Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013). “What if students revolt?”—Considering student resistance: Origins,
options, and opportunities for investigation. CBE—Life Sciences Education,12(4), 586–595. https://doi.org/
10.1187/cbe-13-09-0190
Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experi-
ences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education,88(4),
493–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10131
Shapiro, C., Moberg-Parker, J., Toma, S., Ayon, C., Zimmerman, H., Roth-Johnson, E. A., Hancock, S. P., Levis-
Fitzgerald, M., & Sanders, E. R. (2015). Comparing the impact of course-based and apprentice-based research
experiences in a life science laboratory curriculum. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education,16(2), 186–
197. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v16i2.1045
Shortlidge, E. E., Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2016). Faculty perspectives on developing and teaching
course-based undergraduate research experiences. Bioscience,66(1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/
biv167
Shortlidge, E. E., Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2017). Each to their own CURE: Faculty who teach course-
based undergraduate research experiences report why you too should teach a CURE †.Journal of Microbiol-
ogy & Biology Education,18(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260
30 GOODWIN ET AL.
|

Shortlidge, E. E., & Eddy, S. L. (2018). The trade-off between graduate student research and teaching: A myth?
PLoS One,13(6), e0199576.
Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., Sadler, S. M., & Bressoud, D. M. (2015). The impact of instructor pedagogy on college
calculus students' attitude toward mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science
and Technology,46(3), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2014.979898
Staub, N. L., Poxleitner, M., Braley, A., Smith-Flores, H., Pribbenow, C. M., Jaworski, L., Lopatto, D., &
Anders, K. R. (2016). Scaling up: Adapting a phage-hunting course to increase participation of first-
year students in research. CBE—Life Sciences Education,15(2), ar13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-
10-0211
Sundberg, M. D., Armstrong, J. E., & Wischusen, E. W. (2005). A reappraisal of the status of introductory biology
laboratory education in U.S. colleges & universities. The American Biology Teacher,67(9), 525–529. https://
doi.org/10.2307/4451904
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a
questionnaire/survey in a research (SSRN scholarly paper ID 3205040). Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3205040.
Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher–student relationships in class. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research,43(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.03.003
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE Publications.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth.
Race Ethnicity and Education,8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section
at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Goodwin, E. C., Cary, J. R., Phan, V. D., Therrien, H., &
Shortlidge, E. E. (2023). Graduate teaching assistants impact student motivation and
engagement in course-based undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching,1–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21848
GOODWIN ET AL.31
|