Content uploaded by Erin E. Shortlidge
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erin E. Shortlidge on Mar 25, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, 1–11, Winter 2023 22:es4, 1
ABSTRACT
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) oer an expanding avenue to
engage students in real-world scientific practices. Increasingly, CUREs are instructed by
graduate teaching assistants (TAs), yet TAs may be underprepared to facilitate and face
unique barriers when teaching CUREs. Consequently, unless TAs are provided professional
development (PD) and resources to teach CUREs eectively, they and their students may
not reap the assumed benefits of CURE instruction. Here, we describe three perspectives
– that of the CURE TA, the CURE designer/facilitator, and the CURE student – that are
collectively intended to inform the development of tentative components of CURE TA PD.
We compare these perspectives to previous studies in the literature in an eort to identify
commonalities across all sources and oer potential insights for advancing CURE TA PD
eorts across a diversity of institutional environments. We propose that the most eective
CURE TA PD programs will promote the use of CURE-specific instructional strategies as
benchmarks for guiding change in teaching practices and should focus on three major
elements: 1) enhancement of research and teaching acumen, 2) development of eective
and inclusive mentoring practices, and 3) identification and understanding of the factors
that make CUREs a unique learning experience.
INTRODUCTION
Undergraduate Research
The 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, brought widespread attention to low and inequita-
ble rates of achievement in mathematics and science, insisting that biology faculty, in
particular, develop coordinated plans to improve instruction (American Association
for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2010; Chen, 2013). Since the report, national
calls for education reform have escalated. Notably, science faculty have been tasked
with bridging the gap between research and teaching in order to attract more under-
graduates to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields
(National Research Council [NRC], 2003). The common goal of these reform efforts
has been to develop and implement science instruction that better reflects what scien-
tists actually do rather than a contrived version of the scientific method (Spell et al.,
2014).
One means to address this aim is to involve students in undergraduate research
experiences (UREs). Prior studies indicate that students who participate in UREs
advance in their analytical and critical thinking skills (Seymour et al., 2004; Lopatto
and Tobias, 2010), display increased academic achievement (Russell et al., 2007; Cole
and Espinoza, 2008), are retained at higher rates within the STEM disciplines (Russell
et al., 2007), and are more likely to engage in graduate studies (Lopatto, 2004;
Seymour et al., 2004; Russell et al., 2007) than their peers who did not engage in
Erin E. Shortlidge,†# Amie M. Kern,‡# Emma C. Goodwin,†§ and Jerey T. Olimpo‡*
†Department of Biology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201; ‡Department of Biological
Sciences, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968; §School of Life Sciences, Arizona
State University, Tempe, AZ 85281
Preparing Teaching Assistants to Facilitate
Course-based Undergraduate Research
Experiences (CUREs) in the Biological
Sciences: A Call to Action
James Hewlett, Monitoring Editor
Submitted Sep 20, 2022; Revised Jun 22, 2023;
Accepted Jul 31, 2023
DOI:10.1187/cbe.22-09-0183
#These authors contributed equally to this article
and are to be considered co-rst authors.
Conicts of Interest. The authors declare that
there are no conicts of interest to report. J.T.O.
and E.E.S. were supported, in part, by the National
Science Foundation-funded CURE TAPESTRy
Network (NSF-DBI 2217147). A.M.K. was
supported, in part, by an RCN-UBE grant received
from the National Science Foundation (NSF-DBI
1826988). Any views, opinions, and/or beliefs
expressed in this article are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reect the views, opinions,
and/or beliefs of the National Science Foundation.
*Address correspondence to: Jerey T. Olimpo
(jtolimpo@utep.edu).
© 2023 E. E. Shortlidge, A. M. Kern etal. CBE—Life
Sciences Education © 2023 The American Society
for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The
American Society for Cell Biology under license
from the author(s). It is available to the public
under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share
Alike 4.0 Unported Creative Commons License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-sa/4.0).
“ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell
Biology®” are registered trademarks of The
American Society for Cell Biology.
CBE Life Sci Educ December 1, 2023 22:es4
ESSAY
22:es4, 2 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023
E. E. Shortlidge, A. M. Kern et al.
UREs. UREs that are specifically centered on faculty-mentored
research projects impact a student’s ability to “think like a scien-
tist,” resulting in reported gains in collaboration and communi-
cation, as well as improvements in student affective outcomes
such as interest in science and development of a science iden-
tity (Seymour et al., 2004; Hunter et al., 2007; Thiry et al.,
2011). For these reasons, participants of UREs are often better
prepared to advance in science fields than their counterparts
(Thiry et al., 2011).
Despite strong evidence supporting the need to engage more
students in research, there are numerous challenges to achiev-
ing that goal, including limits on faculty time, funding, and the
resources needed to offer UREs (National Academies of Sci-
ences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2017). Because
UREs traditionally engage students through one-on-one appren-
ticeships, opportunities are frequently confined by a finite num-
ber of research faculty at a given institution and limited space
within each researcher’s laboratory (PCAST, 2012; Rodenbusch
et al., 2016). Thus, there is inequitable access to opportunities
for undergraduates to participate in UREs, as certain groups
of students may be more likely to seek out research appren-
ticeships or to be handpicked by faculty to join their labs
(Auchincloss et al., 2014; Bangera and Brownell, 2014). Fur-
thermore, some faculty may be hesitant to take on undergradu-
ate students because training them may result in lower research
productivity than the training of a graduate student (Chopin,
2002; Prunuske et al., 2013; Morales et al., 2017). Similarly,
recent studies highlight that, in a mentored research experi-
ence, students can have negative interactions with their
research mentors, be those faculty or other trainees (Cooper
et al., 2019; Limeri et al., 2019; Tuma et al., 2021). Although
undergraduate research is largely appreciated as a high-impact
practice in most STEM disciplines (Lopatto, 2010; Russell et al.,
2010; O’Donnell et al., 2015; Lanning and Brown, 2019), there
are clearly questions regarding access to and quality of UREs.
Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences
A potential solution to some of the drawbacks and limitations of
apprenticeship-style UREs is course-based undergraduate
research experiences (CUREs). A CURE is a course that is gen-
erally integrated into a laboratory curriculum, where students
address a research question or problem that is of interest to the
broader community with outcomes that are unknown both to
the students and to the instructor (Domin, 1999; Weaver et al,.
2008; Auchincloss et al., 2014). Similar to many inquiry-based
courses, CUREs engage students in essential research elements
such as using scientific practices, collaboration, and iteration.
However, CUREs are distinct from inquiry courses in that they
are not only designed to induce the aforementioned outcomes,
but they additionally provide the opportunity for broadly rele-
vant and novel discovery – occasionally even resulting in stu-
dent authorship on scientific publications (Auchincloss et al.,
2014; Turner et al., 2021). This critical design element of
CUREs is not missed by students. Indeed, students have
reported perceiving that their CURE experiences are akin to
what it would be like to conduct research in faculty run labs
(Rowland et al., 2016; Goodwin et al., 2021b). However, in
order to truly engage students in scientific research in the
course setting, it is important that CURE instructors actively
foster the premise of students as legitimate participants in
scientific research and ensure their actions are contributing to
achieving research goals (Corwin et al., 2015a).
Like students who partake in UREs, students who have par-
ticipated in CUREs have demonstrated numerous cognitive and
affective gains (Corwin et al., 2015a; Shapiro et al., 2015).
These include an increased interest in scientific research as well
as gains in research skills, scientific literacy, science identity,
emotional ownership, self-efficacy, and persistence in the sci-
ences (Harrison et al., 2011; Brownell et al., 2015; Olimpo
et al., 2016; Indorf et al., 2019; Cooper et al., 2020; Esparza
et al., 2020; Ramírez-Lugo et al., 2021). Participating in CUREs
in introductory biology courses, in particular, can result in an
increased likelihood of students graduating on time and engag-
ing in apprenticeship-based research experiences later in their
academic careers, as compared with a matched comparison
group consisting of students enrolled in traditional introductory
biology laboratory courses (Rodenbusch et al., 2016; Indorf
et al., 2019). Further, CUREs may be especially impactful for
students traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields (Ing
et al., 2021) and for students who enter a CURE with lower
academic preparedness than their peers (Shapiro et al., 2015;
Ing et al., 2021). With their vast potential, CUREs present a
viable answer to the national call for widespread involvement
of undergraduate students in research (AAAS, 2010; Bangera
and Brownell, 2014) and are being broadly promoted as essen-
tial to the undergraduate experience (NASEM, 2015).
CURE Instruction
The CURE model can be embedded into classrooms in a count-
less number of ways. Implementation of CUREs, like any evi-
dence-based pedagogy, is highly context dependent, and CUREs
vary across universities, departments, and instructors (see
Science Education Research Center, 2021, for examples;
Olimpo and Kern, 2021). There are two major categories of
CUREs – the “network” CURE and the “independent” CURE
(Shortlidge et al., 2016). In a network CURE, faculty often
attend a training along with individuals at other institutions to
implement a CURE based on an already-established structure
(e.g., the Genomics Education Project [Hark et al., 2011];
SEA-PHAGES [Jordan et al., 2014]; Tiny Earth [Hurley et al.,
2021]). In contrast, independent CUREs typically emerge from
a faculty member’s research interests or program (e.g., Fisher
et al., 2018; D’Arcy et al., 2019; D’Arcy et al., 2023). To date,
CUREs have been integrated into biology curricula at both the
introductory and advanced levels, in lab-based courses as well
as field courses, and across a multitude of subdisciplines rang-
ing from Microbiology and Genetics to Marine Ecophysiology
and Urban Plant Ecology (e.g., Olimpo et al., 2016; Thompson
et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2018; Shortlidge et al., 2021; Stanfield
et al., 2022).
The extant literature on CUREs has largely focused on stu-
dent outcomes and descriptions of CURE curricula (e.g., Olimpo
et al., 2016; Rodenbusch et al., 2016; McDonald et al., 2019),
with less attention paid to the central characteristics of CURE
instruction (see, as an exception, Esparza et al., 2020). Although
there is an assumption that the CURE model is facilitated by
“senior researchers” (Auchincloss et al., 2014; Rodenbusch
et al., 2016), this task has increasingly fallen to graduate teach-
ing assistants (TAs) and other instructional faculty as the inclu-
sion of CUREs in STEM laboratory curricula has continued to
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023 22:es4, 3
CURE TA Professional Development
grow. Faculty CURE instructors of both network and indepen-
dent CUREs have reported that effective CURE instruction
necessitates sufficient and relevant research experience on the
part of the instructor (Shortlidge et al., 2016, 2017). Conse-
quently, it may be challenging for novice researchers to facili-
tate CUREs due to the dynamic and unpredictable nature of a
CURE learning environment (Shortlidge et al., 2016; Heim and
Holt, 2019; Moy et al., 2019). As the goal of engaging students
in CUREs continues to become more mainstream in undergrad-
uate STEM education, ensuring the preparedness of individuals
to facilitate such courses becomes increasingly more relevant.
While the specific design and context of each CURE will
inherently lead to variance in student outcomes, such outcomes
will also inevitably be impacted by instructor quality and effec-
tiveness. This could be particularly true at the introductory
level, where laboratory classes are frequently taught by multi-
ple instructors, who likely vary widely in their capacity to effec-
tively teach a CURE and/or their buy-in to the CURE model
(Esparza et al., 2020; Goodwin et al., 2021b).
Graduate TAs
The majority of CURE research and advocacy to date neglects
the salient and prevalent reality that graduate student TAs are
often the primary instructors of the introductory laboratory sec-
tions where many CUREs are or will be embedded. Data col-
lected from 65 institutions demonstrate that TAs are responsible
for teaching the bulk of the introductory biology labs at 71% of
comprehensive universities and at 91% of research universities
(Sundberg et al., 2005). Graduate students are undeniably a key
factor in undergraduate science education, yet the prominent
role of TAs, in particular in undergraduate biology education, is
rarely addressed or acknowledged (Gardner and Jones, 2011).
Many practitioners and researchers have advocated for more
holistic and robust professional development (PD) for TAs than
what currently exists (Schussler et al., 2015; Connolly et al.,
2016; Reeves et al., 2016; Feldon et al., 2017; Connolly et al.,
2018; Kern and Olimpo, 2023). Brief trainings, such as the
common graduate student PD “boot camp” (i.e., a single- or
multiday experience that effectively serves to provide graduate
students with a crash course on pedagogy and, consequently,
often only discusses said pedagogy in a superficial manner with
limited opportunities for practice and feedback) are not partic-
ularly effective (Feldon et al., 2017). It is well documented that,
in many cases, TAs receive minimal pedagogical support and/
or training during their graduate tenure (Rushin et al., 1997;
Austin, 2002; Luft et al., 2004; Tanner and Allen, 2006; Gardner
and Jones, 2011; Kendall and Schussler, 2012; Schussler et al.,
2015; Goodwin et al., 2018). Thus, it is not surprising that
nearly 85% of TAs feel inadequately prepared for their teaching
assignments (Russell, 2009). Compounding the impact of hav-
ing underprepared TAs is the fact that the majority of biology
TAs (88%) are assigned to teach introductory laboratory
courses (Schussler et al., 2015). We know that the majority of
students (60% or more) leave STEM majors after introductory
courses (PCAST, 2012); therefore, these courses may be the
first and last science laboratory experience undergraduates
have during their time in the academy. It is therefore of critical
importance that these courses are taught by prepared instruc-
tors (Reeves et al., 2016). In this context, specific attention to
TA PD is especially warranted, as it could have a powerful
impact on undergraduate student learning at many colleges
and universities, especially within the context of CUREs (Ryker
and McConnell, 2014; Reeves et al., 2016; Zehnder, 2016;
Esparza et al., 2020; Goodwin et al., 2021b).
Broadly speaking, it is important to recognize that instruc-
tion (whether in CUREs or elsewhere) is a complex, multifac-
eted phenomenon (Cohen and Ball, 1999). Instructor capacity
is widely viewed as a critical element of good teaching and is
imperative to providing quality education with “the capacity to
produce worthwhile and substantial learning” (Cohen and Ball,
1999). Cohen and Ball (1999) argue that instructional reform
requires considering all interactions that take place between
the instructional materials, the instructor, and the students. A
review of the K–12 literature suggests that instructors with
deep understanding of subject matter content, who are also
proficient in pedagogical content knowledge, were more suc-
cessful in promoting student engagement and improving stu-
dent learning than their counterparts who lacked such under-
standing and knowledge (Darling-Hammond and Bransford,
2007). As stated previously, faculty often choose to teach
CUREs based on their personal research and/or pedagogical
interests (Shortlidge et al., 2016, 2017). Thus, faculty teaching
CUREs may possess deep subject matter knowledge (i.e.,
knowledge of and about the research topic), pedagogical con-
tent knowledge, and interest in CUREs as a teaching strategy,
all of which can result in suitable instructor capacity to teach a
CURE. However, if CUREs are taught by TAs, it is likely that
said TAs are not yet experts in research, may lack deep knowl-
edge of the CURE research topic, may not have experience in
evidence-based teaching, and/or may not even have an interest
in teaching (Goodwin et al., 2022; Goodwin et al., 2023). In
some cases, teaching may simply present a financial means by
which TAs can pursue graduate research (Golde and Dore,
2001; Austin, 2002). Further, the ways TAs are assigned to
teach various course types (e.g., CUREs vs. traditional laborato-
ries) can vary extensively across institutions, even between
departments within a single institution (e.g., Reeves et al.,
2016; Esparza et al., 2020; Goodwin et al., 2021b; Goodwin
et al., 2022; Goodwin et al., 2023). Collectively, these cooccur-
ring factors – TA content knowledge, pedagogical experience,
and TA choice in what they teach – will directly impact both TA
and undergraduate experiences in a CURE.
CURE-specific Challenges
CUREs introduce an added complication to any conversation of
effective instruction in that their focus is not just to convey con-
tent, but rather to provide a research experience. Even for
Ph.D.-level instructors, incorporating research into a course can
be challenging if their research experience is not similar to that
of the CURE, they have little formal teaching experience, and/
or they have not engaged in evidence-based teaching practices
(Shortlidge et al., 2016).
A documented challenge for TAs who have taught discovery-
based chemistry and biology labs is empowering students to
take control of their own learning – TAs tend to have difficulty
permitting students to have autonomy in figuring out answers
on their own and tend to intervene and control the situation
rather than allowing their students to experience failure
(Kurdziel et al., 2003; Luft et al., 2004; Gormally et al., 2016).
This is potentially problematic for TAs, given that faculty who
22:es4, 4 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023
E. E. Shortlidge, A. M. Kern et al.
teach CUREs believe one must “have the ability to deal with
uncertainty” and have a “background in research” in order to
deal with the unpredictability of science and to troubleshoot
unexpected issues (Shortlidge et al., 2016). This idea was
directly reflected in a study on one institution’s TA-taught
CUREs, in that TAs reported that their lack of expertise in the
research topic was a challenge (Heim and Holt, 2019). The
same study reported that TAs felt that the most prevalent issue
with CUREs was the unpreparedness of undergraduates to par-
ticipate in a research-based curriculum. This preconception,
alongside the desire of TAs to demonstrate their knowledge to
students and to avoid receiving negative evaluations from frus-
trated students (e.g., Kurdziel et al., 2003; Gormally et al.,
2016), all present salient barriers to TAs teaching CUREs. Fur-
ther, if a TA is not fully prepared or onboard with teaching the
CURE and creates a negative or complacent classroom climate
as a result, it could impact student outcomes (O’neal et al.,
2007; Goodwin et al., 2023). Undergraduates see TAs as less
knowledgeable than faculty in traditional (cookbook) lab set-
tings (Kendall and Schussler, 2012), and this perception could
be exacerbated if a TA is challenged by the level of research and
teaching expertise necessary to facilitate a CURE.
Finally, undergraduates in CUREs are expected to collabo-
rate with the instructor and their peers (Auchincloss et al.,
2014). Thus, the interactions in a CURE should be intentionally
facilitated and may require more of a mentor–mentee relation-
ship than a traditional teacher–student relationship. For fac-
ulty, this can be a benefit of teaching CUREs (Shortlidge et al.,
2016). While graduate students can be effective mentors to
undergraduate researchers in individual lab settings (e.g.,
Aikens et al., 2016), to our knowledge, their capacity to serve as
CURE research mentors has only recently begun to be investi-
gated (Goodwin et al. 2021b; Santillan et al., 2022).
Professional Development (PD)
To address the barriers to scaffolding research experiences
within the structure of a course, instructors need time to engage
in PD (Spell et al., 2014). As previously described, most TA PD
initiatives have little formal discussion of effective pedagogical
practices or feedback regarding these practices (Luft et al.,
2004; DeChenne et al., 2015; Goodwin et al., 2018; Kern and
Olimpo, 2023). The skills necessary for teaching are not simply
intuitive and need to be acquired through more structured
training and educational programs (Foley, 1974). Research has
demonstrated that participation in such PD initiatives (e.g., a
pedagogy course) can positively influence TAs’ learning and
attitudes toward teaching (Zehnder, 2016; Kern and Olimpo,
2023). While researchers have offered a few suggestions for
successful program characteristics, prior studies have largely
failed to identify the central tenets of effective CURE TA PD
(Spell et al., 2014; Rodenbusch et al., 2016; McDonald et al.,
2019; Moy et al., 2019). In keeping with the literature on
teacher education, we assert that the structure of such PD
should be content focused, promote active learning, be pro-
vided for a sustained time period, highlight diversity, and uti-
lize collective participation (Desimone and Garet, 2015;
Zehnder, 2016).
Relatedly, Reeves et al. (2016) put forth a framework that
outlines desirable TA PD outcomes: cognition (includes knowl-
edge, attitudes, and beliefs about teaching); teaching practices
(i.e., instructional practices); and undergraduate student out-
comes. Facilitators of CURE TA PD initiatives would do well to
attend to these outcomes as a means to assist TAs in engaging
with students around CURE instructional activities in a manner
that fosters student learning and success (Shulman, 1986;
Avery and Reeve, 2013). To these ends, the most effective
CURE TA PD programs will promote the use of CURE-specific
instructional strategies as benchmarks for guiding change in
teaching practices (Avery and Reeve, 2013).
Graduate training is frequently focused on the graduate stu-
dent journey from novice to expert researcher, although many
other aspects of scholarship are paramount to becoming a suc-
cessful academic (Austin, 2002). CUREs, in particular, may
present an unparalleled opportunity for graduate students to
gain exposure to multiple aspects of faculty positions. Many
graduate students may be relatively novice researchers and/or
teachers, but prior studies indicate that graduate student invest-
ment into both activities can be mutually synergistic (Feldon
et al., 2011; Shortlidge and Eddy, 2018; Reid and Gardner,
2020). Having the chance to teach CUREs can be a valuable and
timely opportunity for TAs to develop both research and teach-
ing skills. Reflecting this idea, the chemistry education research
community has recently advocated for “CURE leadership as a
training platform for future faculty” (Cascella and Jez, 2018).
PERSPECTIVES REGARDING THE NECESSARY
COMPONENTS OF CURE TA PD
As STEM education continues to integrate the CURE model into
undergraduate curricula, the critical, systems-level issues dis-
cussed above must be considered when heeding calls for devel-
oping CUREs, especially when faculty are not the course lead.
Despite the relative dearth of literature on CURE TA PD, recent
studies have begun to highlight the perspectives of CURE TAs,
their students, and CURE designers/facilitators with respect to
possible foci for inclusion in such PD. In this section, we review
those studies, with the intent of supporting the proposed future
directions made at the end of this essay. Collectively, our aim is
to increase readers’ awareness of the value and importance of
CURE TA PD and to encourage conversation among CURE TA
PD facilitators.
CURE TA Perspectives
Existing research on the perceptions of CURE TAs has largely
been limited to single instructional contexts (Heim and Holt,
2019; Moy et al., 2019; Goodwin et al., 2021b). As alluded to
earlier in this article, these studies have demonstrated that, in
general, TAs find value in mentoring undergraduates and
believe that leading a CURE has the potential to enhance their
own professional skillset (e.g., communication and research
skills). However, there are some TAs that believe that CUREs
are neither beneficial for introductory biology students, nor do
they provide a valuable PD experience for themselves (Goodwin
et al., 2021b, 2023). One study reported several prevalent bar-
riers and challenges that TAs believe impinge upon their ability
to effectively facilitate CUREs. These include: low self-efficacy
with respect to serving in a supervisory role, logistical and time
constraints, a lack of specific research expertise, and added cog-
nitive demand imposed by the open-ended structure of a CURE
(Heim and Holt, 2019). These reported TA benefits and obsta-
cles are akin to those cited by CURE faculty instructors
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023 22:es4, 5
CURE TA Professional Development
(Shortlidge et al., 2016), suggesting that targeted PD designed
to address one or more of those areas may be of utility to all
CURE facilitators. Further, the perceived costs of teaching a
CURE can vary widely by TA, indicating that some TAs may
need more support than others (Goodwin et al., 2021b).
Seeking to expand upon this body of work, Shortlidge and
Goodwin (described in Kern [2022]) conducted a qualitative
study across a diversity of institutions nationwide to capture a
more representative account of TA perspectives on facilitating
CUREs. Findings of this study largely echo the above observa-
tions. Specifically, semistructured interview data obtained from
22 CURE TAs revealed that many of them believed that facilitat-
ing a CURE helped them hone their own skills in one or multi-
ple areas including research, mentorship, communication, and
evidence-based teaching – all of which could be important as
they move forward in their careers. Like faculty (Shortlidge
et al., 2016), TAs also described developing a better relation-
ship with their students in CUREs as compared with traditional
laboratory courses, and many reported increased overall excite-
ment around teaching a CURE. While most TAs in the study had
generally positive views of CUREs as a whole, several recog-
nized that they struggled with the unpredictability of research
and (less frequently) explained that this was particularly chal-
lenging given their own lack of research expertise.
Student Perspectives on CURE TAs
Recently, Goodwin and colleagues (2022, 2023) explored how
biology students perceive their CURE TAs, as this critical per-
spective is commonly uncaptured. As part of their prior work at
one institution, Goodwin et al. (2021b) documented that TAs
largely reported feeling confident in teaching a CURE and did
not believe that more training would improve their teaching.
Yet, those TAs’ students reported wide variation in how they
perceived their TAs’ competence in creating a student-support-
ive CURE learning environment (see also Goodwin et al., 2022).
Collectively, these data indicate that, even when TAs are confi-
dent in their CURE instruction, further teaching PD may be
needed, and triangulating student experiences with instructor
actions is critical to understanding course outcomes (Goddard
et al., 2000).
Relatedly, Goodwin et al. (2023) found that TAs can influ-
ence how students experience central research elements in a
CURE (e.g., discovery and broader relevance). For instance,
students with higher motivation to engage in a CURE were
more likely to describe their TAs as supporting their autonomy
and competence in the key research elements comprising the
CURE than their peers with lower levels of motivation. These
same students were also more likely to express that their
TA facilitated social belonging in the CURE classroom, a critical
factor known to impact student success (Strayhorn, 2018).
These findings raise a concern with respect to one of the main
purposes of a CURE – to make access to research experiences
more inclusive (Bangera and Brownell, 2014). If TA-facilitated
CUREs disproportionately benefit those students who are
already scientifically motivated, the intention of equitable out-
comes is not being achieved.
Of similar concern is the observation that, although the
CURE model places emphasis on scaffolding opportunities for
broadly relevant and novel research, students in the study con-
ducted by Goodwin et al. (2023) generally perceived that their
TAs’ priority was to teach students scientific practices and scien-
tific content – elements that are emphasized in traditional biol-
ogy labs and that are not unique to CUREs. Additionally, stu-
dent perspectives regarding the purpose of engaging in a CURE
occasionally varied as a function of who was assigned as their
CURE TA. Some students felt that CUREs are offered primarily
to support students, while others indicated that CUREs exist to
enhance the research productivity and prestige of an institution
(Goodwin et al., 2023). These findings suggest that how CURE
TAs communicate with their students (e.g., through mentoring,
informal conversation) and what they choose to emphasize
during those interactions may directly shape the way students
perceive and engage with the CURE. Additional studies on
CUREs taught by TAs across institution type and CURE format
will enable us to better understand the bidirectional relation-
ship between TA and student perceptions of CUREs.
CURE Facilitator Perspectives on TA PD
To the best of our knowledge, only one study has asked faculty
instructors of CUREs what they believe to be the key potential
elements of CURE TA PD (Kern, 2022). As part of their disser-
tation work, Kern (2022) employed purposeful sampling to
recruit CURE facilitators (i.e., non-TA instructors; N = 49) in
attendance at the 2019 Association for Biology Laboratory
Education (ABLE) and Society for the Advancement of Biology
Education Research (SABER) annual meetings. Participants
were asked to complete a brief survey in which they indicated
whether 26 items related to teaching and learning should be
included as part of PD for: 1) all TAs facilitating CUREs,
2) some TAs facilitating CUREs, or 3) no TAs facilitating
CUREs. Inclusion of the second option, “some TAs facilitating
CUREs,” was intentional given the wide range of potentially
unique conventions for any specific CURE. For example, Olimpo
et al. (2019) reported on a CURE that required students to
obtain human subjects research certification to conduct inde-
pendent projects on health disparities in the El Paso border
region, yet human subjects research certification is unlikely to
be a requirement for the majority of CURE students or CURE
TAs. Results of Kern’s study indicated that a diverse suite of
elements ranging from more generalized laboratory and peda-
gogical practices (e.g., lab safety, inclusive teaching) to more
contextualized instructional elements of CUREs (e.g., facilitat-
ing collaboration, iteration) were viewed as being necessary
for all CURE TAs. Other items – such as developing students’
metacognitive abilities and aiding TAs in adopting strategies
for discussing with students the broader implications of discov-
ery-based investigations for science and society – were believed
to be less essential. Furthermore, items related to the profes-
sional growth of the CURE TAs themselves (rather than their
students; e.g., planning and designing lessons, translating
CURE teaching experience to a CV or teaching statement) were
frequently ranked as being essential for only some CURE TAs
rather than all CURE TAs, suggesting an area for future discus-
sion and investigation.
After the initial evaluation described above, participants
were asked to select the three most important components that
they felt should be included in CURE TA PD. The majority of
participants indicated strategies for troubleshooting and
addressing challenges that arise during the research process.
This was followed by strategies for teaching experimental
22:es4, 6 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023
E. E. Shortlidge, A. M. Kern et al.
design and/or facilitating students’ development of scientific
process skills. To a lesser degree, respondents also selected
strategies for discussing with students the broader relevancy of
their work, strategies for facilitating student communication of
their findings, specific teaching techniques, and strategies for
improving students’ ability to “think like a scientist” as being
among their top three choices.
Collectively, these findings corroborate earlier work in the
field (e.g., Heim and Holt, 2019) and closely mirror the per-
spectives provided by CURE TAs. Notably, however, the ele-
ment that the literature argues is unique to CUREs (broader
relevance; Auchincloss et al., 2014) is less emphasized than
elements that are typically found in most laboratory courses
(e.g., skill building).
IDENTIFYING CORE ELEMENTS OF CURE TA PD
In consideration of the above findings and the previously-re-
ported outcomes summarized herein, we propose that CURE
TA PD initiatives could encompass three major elements:
1) enhancement of research and teaching acumen, 2) develop-
ment of effective and inclusive mentoring practices, and
3) identification and understanding of the factors that make
CUREs a unique laboratory experience. Each of these elements
are described below.
Research and Teaching Acumen
Previous studies suggest that CUREs should be facilitated by
instructors who have spent time conducting research them-
selves (Auchincloss et al., 2014; Shortlidge et al., 2016), as this
may alleviate expressed challenges with teaching CUREs.
Reflective of the central tenets of CUREs (e.g., student engage-
ment in scientific practices, discovery, and iteration), facilitators
should also possess an adequate understanding of experimental
design principles in order to guide students through the process
of creating and/or executing independent investigations (Heim
and Holt, 2019). This might be accomplished by using micro-
teaching approaches in which TAs are tasked with modeling the
experimentation process, involving TAs in outlining and dis-
cussing central elements of that process (e.g., sensu Harwood,
2004), and/or facilitating open conversation about how the TAs
themselves engage in research (and how this might translate,
practically, into the CURE environment). While arguably less
realistic, it might also be possible for CURE facilitators to inten-
tionally recruit TAs who are more advanced in their program of
study – for instance, those individuals who have already suc-
cessfully defended their thesis/dissertation proposal and, there-
fore, have more intimate familiarity with the research process.
A TA’s research training and expertise could be anywhere
along the novice to expert continuum; therefore, it would be
wise to engage all CURE instructors in some version of the
CURE research itself before teaching the CURE. This would
allow for TAs to gain knowledge on the focal study system, con-
text and methodology, and, ideally, prior or related literature.
This is likely particularly crucial if a TA is both a novice
researcher and a novice teacher. One suggestion would be to
pair novice TAs with a more senior TA and/or to structure TA
PD such that novice TAs can shadow more experienced TAs or
faculty instructors, thereby gaining relevant knowledge on the
research project and how to execute pedagogical practices that
are specific to the CURE.
More broadly, recognition of and attentiveness to the situa-
tional factors governing one’s classroom are crucial in optimiz-
ing the learning experience. Respondents in the studies
described by Kern (2022) – which included CURE facilitators in
the biological sciences subdisciplines – valued the importance of
“considering the classroom environment.” When specifically
asked to describe why they valued this tenet as a potential com-
ponent of CURE TA PD, participants noted the importance of
understanding and incorporating students’ experiences into
one’s teaching, being mindful of how to structure the learning
environment to be responsive to the needs of diverse students,
and remaining cognizant of how individuals in the classroom
interact to achieve common goals. Relatedly, in the work con-
ducted by Goodwin et al. (2022), CURE students reported sig-
nificant variation in the ability of their TAs to create a stu-
dent-supportive learning environment. These findings
corroborate previous studies that have emphasized instructor
capacity as a critical element of good teaching (Cohen and Ball,
1999). PD that includes giving graduate students a chance to
practice relevant evidence-based and inclusive teaching practices
could have a powerful impact on TAs’ teaching self-efficacy, atti-
tudes toward teaching, and continued use of evidence-based
practices (DeChenne et al., 2015; Connolly et al., 2016; Reeves
et al., 2016; Goodwin et al., 2018).
Some faculty who develop their own CUREs see those
courses as a means to highlight and embody their identity as a
teacher–researcher (Shortlidge et al., 2016). Similarly, PD for
CURE TAs should offer opportunities for the TAs to reflect on
the intersection between research and teaching, so as to nor-
malize and create an integrated framework for facilitating
CUREs. Given that TAs report that CUREs offer opportunities
for them to improve their teaching, research, and mentorship
skills (Goodwin et al., 2021b; Shortlidge and Goodwin (see
Kern [2022]), CUREs may be a unique mechanism for training
future faculty to embody a more holistic scholarship (e.g.,
Boyer, 1990), which has been advocated for over the recent
decades (Austin, 2002; Gardner and Jones, 2011).
We further contend that TAs could benefit from CURE PD
intentionally designed to curate a mindset that embraces the
uncertain nature of research. If CURE TAs are expecting that
not everything will inherently go according to plan, and that
those experiences can be turned into teaching opportunities,
then they will be better equipped to practice this skill in real
time. Teaching the need for patience throughout the scientific
process and normalizing failure as a part of scientific research
are important aspects of CURE instruction that can potentially
increase undergraduate student buy-in to the authenticity of
the CURE (Corwin et al., 2015a; Gin et al., 2018; Goodwin
et al., 2021a). Providing TAs with the pedagogical skills neces-
sary to effectively aid students in iteration/troubleshooting and
educating TAs about how to troubleshoot themselves is argu-
ably critical in advancing the established research agenda for
the course (Corwin et al., 2018; Gin et al., 2018).
Eective and Inclusive Mentoring
Comments pertaining to mentoring and mentorship were
replete throughout the studies that we reviewed (e.g.,
Shortlidge et al., 2016; Heim and Holt, 2019; Goodwin et al.,
2021b; Kern and Olimpo, 2023), highlighting the belief that
instructors in CURE contexts have a more substantial role than
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023 22:es4, 7
CURE TA Professional Development
solely that of a deliverer of information and lab moderator.
However, TAs differ in their perceptions of what their mentor-
ship role in the CURE classroom should be: some focus on pro-
viding emotional support in the classroom, while others priori-
tize developing students’ competence as a researcher.
Conversely, some may simply struggle to adopt clear mentor-
ship roles (Goodwin et al., 2021b). The need to adopt multiple
roles can be intimidating to TAs, and informal conversations
with CURE facilitators (data not shown) suggest that CURE TA
PD should address components of effective mentorship and
project management, much like how a principal investigator
might lead their own lab group and manage different projects
(Dolan, 2016). In addition to identifying and demonstrating
effective mentoring strategies (e.g., through roleplay), CURE
TA PD facilitators might make use of existing instruments (e.g.,
Mentoring Competency Assessment [Fleming et al., 2013]) to
engage TAs in exploring their own perceived strengths and
weaknesses in this area. There are a number of resources within
the Entering Mentoring curriculum (Center for the Improve-
ment of Mentored Experiences in Research, 2021) that provide
realistic case studies that could likewise be used in CURE TA
PD. Further, developing in-house case studies for TAs to engage
with that are rooted in the institution’s context and, perhaps,
the CURE content could give TAs practice in handing situations
before they arise.
Given that an explicit goal of CUREs is to make research
experiences more accessible and equitable for undergraduates
(Bangera and Brownell, 2014), intentional TA PD in inclusive
pedagogy will be critical for all students to feel like they are
“doing science.” Part of this effort will be making this aspect of
why we do CUREs explicit to TAs (more below) and by reinforc-
ing this intentionality by integrating practical inclusive teaching
skills into the PD (e.g., Dewsbury and Brame, 2019).
Knowledge of What Makes a CURE Unique
CUREs offer students a unique platform to engage in research
that addresses real-world biological problems. As noted previ-
ously, the opportunity for students to engage in novel research
that has relevance extending beyond the classroom is what dis-
tinguishes a CURE from other forms of laboratory instruction
(e.g., traditional labs, inquiry-based labs; Auchincloss et al.,
2014). However, we found that when TAs had trouble recog-
nizing the opportunities for broadly relevant, novel discovery in
the CURE curriculum, students did not perceive that doing
novel research in the CURE was a high priority (Goodwin et al.,
2022). Consequently, for those TAs with limited (or no) experi-
ence teaching CUREs, PD facilitators may consider explicitly
discussing the unique research opportunities provided to stu-
dents via CUREs and the role TAs can have in supporting stu-
dents’ understanding of the advantages of engaging in such a
curriculum. This might be accomplished by first informing TAs
that they are responsible for a research-driven course and ask-
ing them to discuss what they feel this opportunity entails, rel-
ative to the laboratory experiences that they likely engaged in
as a student. TAs might also be prompted to consider how
CUREs mirror (or not) apprenticeship-style research training.
With this framing in mind, PD facilitators could then more for-
mally introduce the dimensions of CUREs (Auchincloss et al.,
2014) and lead TAs into a discussion of how they anticipate
facilitating such a course. As a training or assessment exercise,
TA PD could include TAs completing a modified Laboratory
Course Assessment Survey for instructors (Corwin et al., 2015b)
or, at minimum, reading the survey items as a group to gain an
idea of the specific actions that they could be taking in the class-
room to facilitate CURE elements. CURE TAs might be expected
to read journal articles from the literature regarding why CUREs
are being implemented nationally and to learn about some of
the potential outcomes from CUREs. Therefore, those facilitat-
ing CURE TA PD should also be relatively familiar with the
CURE literature base in order to lead a journal club or similar
opportunities for CURE TAs. Lastly, PD facilitators may wish to
take advantage of published tools (e.g., Olimpo and Kern,
2021) to aid the TAs in articulating the research and pedagogi-
cal goals of the CURE as well as documenting the course activi-
ties and assessments that align to each of the five dimensions of
CUREs (Auchincloss et al., 2014).
SUPPORTING CURE TA PD FACILITATORS
In addition to focusing on the content of the PD, care must be
taken to provide appropriate support to those individuals
tasked with PD facilitation. Prior research (e.g., Diaz-Martinez
et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2022) suggests that this can best be
achieved through creation of a community of practice focused
on CURE TA PD that serves a dual function in collating and
cataloging CURE TA PD resources. With generous support
from the National Science Foundation’s Research Coordina-
tion Network – Undergraduate Biology Education (RCN-UBE)
program, authors Olimpo and Shortlidge (in collaboration
with Co-PIs M. Aikens [University of New Hampshire] and A.
Schuchardt [University of Minnesota, Twin Cities]) will direct
the CURE TA PD to Enhance Scientific Teaching, Research,
and Mentoring Capacity (CURE TAPESTRy) initiative (NSF-
DBI 2217147). This effort will leverage the infrastructure and
successes of previous networks, such as BioTAP (Biology
Teaching Assistant Project, 2023) and CUREnet (Science Edu-
cation Research Center, 2023), to 1) characterize the current
CURE TA PD landscape; 2) create, implement, and assess a
one-year fellowship experience for CURE TA PD facilitators,
who will be tasked with generating novel CURE TA PD
materials; and 3) develop and evaluate a “train-the-trainer”
edX massively open online course designed to effectively pre-
pare CURE TA PD facilitators for their role in providing PD to
CURE TAs.
As a complement to large-scale efforts, such as CURE
TAPESTRy, regional and national workshops – such as those
conducted by Kern and Olimpo at the 2019 ABLE and SABER
meetings – can offer CURE TA PD facilitators dedicated time to
begin considering how they might shape a CURE TA PD pro-
gram while simultaneously expanding the community of prac-
tice around CURE TA PD. These individuals, much like the
CURE TAPESTRy fellows, could serve as CURE TA PD “champi-
ons,” thereby broadening the network of educators and schol-
ars committed to this cause. Additionally, the infrastructure of
network CUREs may provide an ideal platform for expanding
instructor PD to include TA-specific PD.
Regardless, any effort to support CURE TA PD facilitators
must be accessible and inclusive, practical (i.e., result in the
generation of a product that the facilitator can make use of to
further CURE TA PD), promote dialogue around the topic, and
be sustainable beyond a funding lifecycle.
22:es4, 8 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023
E. E. Shortlidge, A. M. Kern et al.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Since their advent, CUREs have increasingly been incorporated
into STEM curricula nationwide. While there are now countless
studies documenting the impact of CUREs on students’ aca-
demic and professional growth (e.g., Olimpo et al., 2016;
Peteroy-Kelly et al., 2017; Connors et al., 2021), substantially
less attention has been given to instructors in this same context.
This is especially true for TAs, who are largely responsible for
facilitating laboratory coursework, including at both the intro-
ductory and advanced levels (Sundberg et al., 2005; Schussler
et al., 2015). Accordingly, this essay reflects our strong advo-
cacy for the development and implementation of intentional
CURE TA PD opportunities and likewise offers guidance for
those interested in meeting this need.
We recognize that CURE TA PD efforts will not emerge as
“one-size-fits-all” solutions to preparing graduate TAs, nor do
we believe that they should be. The studies reviewed in this
article highlight that, even in a small sample, CUREs are imple-
mented in a variety of contexts and that each context will
require nuanced PD. However, we encourage creators, facilita-
tors, and evaluators of CURE TA PD initiatives to consider the
following: 1) What level of training and experience do the TAs
facilitating the CURE have with respect to research, teaching,
and mentoring?; 2) What facets of TA PD are essential to
include for the particular CURE, and which have a supporting
role?; 3) What makes those facets essential (i.e., why are they
necessary and valuable)?; and 4) What form will the PD require,
and when will it be implemented?
Establishing targeted goals and feasible PD activities will
ideally mitigate reported concerns regarding the time con-
straints of developing CUREs and the expanded role of the
CURE instructor (Shortlidge et al., 2016). Furthermore, solicit-
ing routine formative feedback from both the TAs and their
students can serve to enhance PD quality and provide construc-
tive commentary on TA praxis. There are a number of ways
to collect such feedback (e.g., minute papers, metacognitive
prompts administered to TAs during prep meetings), and the
methods used should reflect the intention. There are likewise
mechanisms by which one can intentionally and systematically
assess the outcomes of their CURE (for more, see Corwin et al.,
2015a; Shortlidge and Brownell, 2016), which may or may not
be a goal for the institution or faculty member leading the
initiative.
Although CURE TA PD approaches will inherently reflect the
context in which they were created, a concerted and explicit
effort among members of the community to attend to this ele-
ment of CURE implementation will enable said approaches to
be adaptable for use across institutions. Establishing partner-
ships with shareholders in Centers for Teaching and Learning
and graduate schools can expedite this process, ostensibly lead-
ing to the genesis of new knowledge and techniques for pro-
moting TAs’ effectiveness in the CURE classroom. Creating a
community of practice and culture around CURE TA PD will
likewise foster sustainable advances for all parties involved
beyond the immediate environment of the PD itself.
REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2010). Vision
and Change: A Call to Action. Washington, DC: American Association for
the Advancement of Science. Retrieved October 1, 2021, from. https://
www.visionandchange.org/VC_report.pdf
Aikens, M. L., Sadselia, S., Watkins, K., Evans, M., Eby, L. T., & Dolan, E. L.
(2016). A social capital perspective on the mentoring of undergraduate
life science researchers: An empirical study of undergraduate–postgrad-
uate–faculty triads. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), ar16.
Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagen, K., Graham, M.,
Hanauer, D. I., ... & Rowland, S. (2014). Assessment of course-based un-
dergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 13(1), 29–40.
Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate
school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher
Education, 73(1), 94–122.
Avery, Z. K., & Reeve, E. M. (2013). Developing eective STEM professional
development programs. Journal of Technology Education, 25(1), 55–69.
Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research
experiences can make scientic research more inclusive. CBE—Life
Sciences Education, 13(4), 602–606.
Biology Teaching Assistant Project (BioTAP). (2023). biotap.org
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate.
Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brownell, S. E., Hekmat-Scafe, D. S., Singla, V., Seawell, P. C., Imam, J. F. C.,
Eddy, S. L., … & Cyert, M. S. (2015). A high-enrollment course-based
undergraduate research experience improves student conceptions of
scientic thinking and ability to interpret data. CBE—Life Sciences Educa-
tion, 14(2), ar21.
Cascella, B., & Jez, J. M. (2018). Beyond the teaching assistantship: CURE
leadership as a training platform for future faculty. Journal of Chemical
Education, 95(1), 3–6.
Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research. (2021).
CIMER Project. Madison, WI: Center for the Improvement of Mentored
Experiences in Research. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from. https://
cimerproject.org/
Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students' paths into and out of STEM
fields. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Chopin, S. F. (2002). Undergraduate research experiences: The translation of
science education from reading to doing. The Anatomical Record: An
Ocial Publication of the American Association of Anatomists, 269(1),
3–10.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement.
Retrieved September 30, 2021, from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED431749.pdf
Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino
students in science technology engineering and mathematics
(STEM) majors. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 285–
300.
Connolly, M., Savoy, J., Lee, Y., & Hill, L. (2016). Building a better future STEM
faculty: How doctoral teaching programs can improve undergraduate
education. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Connolly, M., Lee, Y., & Savoy, J. (2018). The eects of doctoral teach-
ing development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching
self-ecacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar14.
Connors, P. K., Lanier, H. C., Erb, L. P., Varner, J., Dizney, L., Flaherty, E. A.,
... & Hanson, J. D. (2021). Connected while distant: Networking CUREs
across classrooms to create community and empower students.
Integrative and Comparative Biology, https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/
icab146
Cooper, K. M., Gin, L. E., Akeeh, B., Clark, C. E., Hunter, J. S., Roderick, T. B.,
... & Pfeier, L. D. (2019). Factors that predict life sciences student
persistence in undergraduate research experiences. PloS one, 14(8),
e0220186.
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 scientic identity and
emotional ownership of research. Journal of Microbiology & Biology
Education, 21(3) doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i3.2157
Corwin, L. A., Graham, M. J., & Dolan, E. L. (2015a). Modeling course-based
undergraduate research experiences: An agenda for future research and
evaluation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), es1.
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023 22:es4, 9
CURE TA Professional Development
Corwin, L. A., Runyon, C., Robinson, A., & Dolan, E. L. (2015b). The Laborato-
ry Course Assessment Survey: A tool to measure three dimensions of
research-course design. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar37.
Corwin, L. A., Runyon, C., Ghanem, E., Sandy, M., Clark, G., Palmer, G. C., ... &
Dolan, E. L. (2018). Eects of discovery, iteration, and collaboration in
laboratory courses on undergraduates’ research career intentions fully
mediated by student ownership. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2),
ar20.
D’Arcy, C. E., Lapsov, L., Navarro, V., Nevarez, D., & Olimpo, J. T. (2023).
Converting a face-to-face neuroanatomy course-based undergradu-
ate research experience (CURE) to an online environment: Lessons
learned from remote teaching. Advances in Physiology Education,
47(1), 52–70.
D’Arcy, C. E., Martinez, A., Khan, A. M., & Olimpo, J. T. (2019). Cognitive and
non-cognitive outcomes associated with student engagement in a novel
brain chemoarchitecture mapping course-based undergraduate re-
search experience. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education,
18(1), A15.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2007). Preparing teachers for a
changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.
DeChenne, S. E., Koziol, N., Needham, M., & Enochs, L. (2015). Modeling
sources of teaching self-ecacy for science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics graduate teaching assistants. CBE—Life Sciences Edu-
cation, 14(3), ar32.
Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teacher’s profession-
al development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education,
7(3), 252–263.
Dewsbury, B., & Brame, C. J. (2019). Inclusive teaching. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 18(2), fe2.
Diaz-Martinez, L. A., Hernandez, A. A., D’Arcy, C. E., Corral, S., Bhatt, J. M.,
Esparza, D., … & Olimpo, J. T. (2021). Current approaches for integrating
Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research (RECR) education into
course-based undergraduate research experiences: A national assess-
ment. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(3), ar38.
Dolan, E. L. (2016). Course-based undergraduate research experiences: Cur-
rent knowledge and future directions. Retrieved October 1, 2021, from
https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/
webpage/dbasse_177288.pdf
Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of
Chemical Education, 76(4), 543–547.
Esparza, D., Wagler, A. E., & Olimpo, J. T. (2020). Characterization of instruc-
tor and student behaviors in CURE and Non-CURE learning environ-
ments: Impacts on student motivation, science identity development,
and perceptions of the laboratory experience. CBE—Life Sciences Edu-
cation, 19(1), ar10.
Feldon, D. F., Jeong, S., Peugh, J., Roksa, J., Maahs-Fladung, C., Shenoy, A., &
Oliva, M. (2017). Null eects of boot camps and short-format training for
PhD students in life sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 114(37), 9854–9858.
Feldon, D. F., Peugh, J., Timmerman, B. E., Maher, M. A., Hurst, M., Strickland, D.,
... & Stiegelmeyer, C. (2011). Graduate students' teaching experiences im-
prove their methodological research skills. Science, 333(6045), 1037–1039.
Fisher, G. R., Olimpo, J. T., McCabe, T. M., & Pevey, R. S. (2018). The Tigriopus
CURE–A course-based undergraduate research experience with con-
comitant supplemental instruction. Journal of Microbiology & Biology
Education, 19(1), 19–11.
Fleming, M., House, M. S., Shewakramani, M. V., Yu, L., Garbutt, J., McGee, R.,
... & Rubio, D. M. (2013). The mentoring competency assessment: Valida-
tion of a new instrument to evaluate skills of research mentors. Academ-
ic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges,
88(7), 1002–1008.
Foley, R. P. (1974). Microteaching for teacher training. Public Health Papers
(61), 80–88.
Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2011). Pedagogical preparation of the science
graduate teaching assistant: Challenges and implications. Science Edu-
cator, 20(2), 31–41.
Gin, L. E., Rowland, A. A., Steinwand, B., Bruno, J., & Corwin, L. A. (2018). Stu-
dents who fail to achieve predened research goals may still experience
many positive outcomes as a result of CURE participation. CBE—Life Sci-
ences Education, 17(4), ar57.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher ecacy:
Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507.
Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences
of today’s doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin. Retrieved October 1, 2021, from. https://les
.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED450628.pdf
Goodwin, E. C., Anokhin, V., Gray, M. J., Zajic, D. E., Podrabsky, J. E.,
& Shortlidge, E. E. (2021a). Is this science? Students’ experiences of fail-
ure make a research-based course feel authentic. CBE—Life Sciences
Education, 20(1), ar10.
Goodwin, E. C., Cao, J., Fletcher, M., Flaiban, J., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2018).
Catching the wave: Are biology graduate students on board with evi-
dence-based teaching? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(3), ar43.
Goodwin, E. C., Cary, J. R., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2021b). Enthusiastic but inconsis-
tent: Exploring graduate students’ varied perceptions of their role as an in-
structor in the CURE classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(4), ar66.
Goodwin, E. C., Cary, J. R., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2022). Not the same CURE:
Student experiences in course-based undergraduate research experi-
ences vary by graduate teaching assistant. PLOS One, 17(9), e0275313.
Goodwin, E. C., Cary, J. R., Phan, V. D., Therrien, H., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2023).
Graduate teaching assistants impact student motivation and engage-
ment in course-based undergraduate research experiences. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 1–31.
Gormally, C., Sullivan, C. S., & Szeinbaum, N. (2016). Uncovering barriers to
teaching assistants (TAs) implementing inquiry teaching: Inconsistent fa-
cilitation techniques, student resistance, and reluctance to share control
over learning with students. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Educa-
tion, 17(2), 215–224.
Hark, A. T., Bailey, C. P., Parrish, S., Leung, W., Shaer, C. D., & Elgin, S. C.
(2011). Undergraduate research in the Genomics Education Partnership:
A comparative genomics project exploring genome organization and
chromatin structure in Drosophila. The FASEB Journal, 25(1). 576.3.
Harrison, M., Dunbar, D., Ratmansky, L., Boyd, K., & Lopatto, D. (2011). Class-
room-based science research at the introductory level: Changes in career
choices and attitude. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(3), 279–286.
Harwood, W. (2004). An activity model for scientic inquiry. The Science
Teacher, 71(1), 44.
Heim, A. B., & Holt, E. A. (2019). Benets and challenges of instructing intro-
ductory biology course-based undergraduate research experiences
(CUREs) as perceived by graduate teaching assistants. CBE—Life Scienc-
es Education, 18(3), ar43.
Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The
role of undergraduate research in students' cognitive, personal, and pro-
fessional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36–74.
Hurley, A., Chevrette, M. G., Acharya, D. D., Lozano, G. L., Garavito, M.,
Heinritz, J., ... & Corinaldi, K. (2021). Tiny Earth: A big idea for STEM
education and antibiotic discovery. MBio, 12(1), e03432–03420.
Indorf, J. L., Weremijewicz, J., Janos, D. P., & Gaines, M. S. (2019). Adding
authenticity to inquiry in a rst-year, research-based, biology laboratory
course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar38.
Ing, M., Burnette, III, 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.
Jordan, T. C., Burnett, S. H., Carson, S., Caruso, S. M., Clase, K., DeJong, R. J.,
... & Elgin, S. C. (2014). A broadly implementable research course in
phage discovery and genomics for rst-year undergraduate students.
MBio, 5(1), e01051–01013.
Kendall, K. D., & Schussler, E. E. (2012). Does instructor type matter? Under-
graduate student perception of graduate teaching assistants and profes-
sors. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(2), 187–199.
Kern, A. M. (2022). Generating and sustaining meaningful professional devel-
opment opportunities for graduate teaching assistants facilitating
course-based undergraduate research experiences in the biological
sciences [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at El Paso]. El
Paso, TX: ScholarWorks@UTEP.
22:es4, 10 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023
E. E. Shortlidge, A. M. Kern et al.
Kern, A. M., & Olimpo, J. T. (2023). SMART CUREs: A professional develop-
ment program for advancing teaching assistant preparedness to facilitate
course-based undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Microbi-
ology & Biology Education, 24(1), e00137–22.
Kurdziel, J. P., Turner, J. A., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2003). Graduate
teaching assistants and inquiry-based instruction: Implications for grad-
uate teaching assistant training. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(10),
1206–1210.
Lanning, S., & Brown, M. (2019). Undergraduate research as a high impact
practice in higher education. Education Sciences, 9(160) doi: 10.3390/
edusci9030160
Limeri, L. B., Asif, M. Z., Bridges, B. H. T., Esparza, D., Tuma, T. T., Sanders, D.,
... & Dolan, E. L. (2019). “Where’s my mentor?!” Characterizing negative
mentoring experiences in undergraduate life science research. CBE—Life
Sciences Education, 18(4), ar61.
Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE):
First ndings. Cell Biology Education, 3(4), 270–277.
Lopatto, D. (2010). Undergraduate research as a high-impact student expe-
rience. Peer Review, 12(2), 27.
Lopatto, D., & Tobias, S. (2010). Science in solution: The impact of under-
graduate research on student learning. Tucson, AZ: Research Corpora-
tion on Science Advancement.
Luft, J. A., Kurdziel, J. P., Roehrig, G. H., & Turner, J. (2004). Growing a garden
without water: Graduate teaching assistants in introductory science
laboratories at a doctoral/research university. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 41(3), 211–233.
McDonald, K. K., Martin, A. R., Watters, C. P., & Landerholm, T. E. (2019).
A faculty development model for transforming a department’s laboratory
curriculum with course-based undergraduate research experiences.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 48(3), 14–23.
Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J. S., Marbach-Ad, G., Schussler, E. E., & Gardner, G. E.
(2022). The BioTAP professional development model: Expanding empiri-
cal research on graduate student teaching professional development.
CourseSource, 9, 1–9.
Morales, D. X., Grineski, S. E., & Collins, T. W. (2017). Increasing research pro-
ductivity in undergraduate research experiences: Exploring predictors of
collaborative faculty-student publications. CBE—Life Sciences Educa-
tion, 16(3), ar42.
Moy, M. K., Hammrich, P. L., & Kabnick, K. (2019). Developing a tiered mento-
ring model for teaching assistants instructing course-based research
experiences. Journal of College Science Teaching, 48(5), 59–67.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM]. (2015).
Integrating discovery-based research into the undergraduate curriculum:
Report of a convocation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NASEM. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students:
Successes, challenges, and opportunities. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2003). BIO2010: Transforming undergraduate
education for future research biologists.
O’Donnell, K., Botelho, J., Brown, J., González, G. M., & Head, W. (2015).
Undergraduate research and its impact on student success for underrepre-
sented students. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(169), 27–38.
O’neal, C., Wright, M., Cook, C., Perorazio, T., & Purkiss, J. (2007). The impact
of teaching assistants on student retention in the sciences: Lessons for
TA training. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 24–29.
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.
Olimpo, J. T., Apodaca, J., Hernandez, A., & Paat, Y.-F. (2019). Disease and the
environment: A health disparities CURE incorporating civic engagement ed-
ucation. Science Education and Civic Engagement: An International Journal.
Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://new.seceij.net/articletype/disease
-and-the-environment/
Olimpo, J. T., & Kern, A. M. (2021). The DoC IT: A professional development
tool to support and articulate alignment of one’s course with the ve di-
mensions of CUREs. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(3),
e00162-21. https://journals.asm.org/doi/epdf/10.1128/jmbe.00162-21
PCAST. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college
graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathe-
matics. Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED541511.pdf
Peteroy-Kelly, M. A., Marcello, M. R., Crispo, E., Buraei, Z., Strahs, D., Isaacson,
M., ... & Zuzga, D. (2017). Participation in a year-long CURE embedded
into major core genetics and cellular and molecular biology laboratory
courses results in gains in foundational biological concepts and experi-
mental design skills by novice undergraduate researchers. Journal of
Microbiology & Biology Education, 18(1), 18.1.1. https://journals.asm.org/
doi/pdf/10.1128/jmbe.v18i1.1226
Prunuske, A. J., Wilson, J., Walls, M., & Clarke, B. (2013). Experiences of men-
tors training underrepresented undergraduates in the research laborato-
ry. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 403–409.
Ramírez-Lugo, J. S., Toledo-Hernández, C., Vélez-González, I., & Ruiz-Diaz,
C. P. (2021). CREARE: A course-based undergraduate research experience
to study the responses of the endangered coral Acropora cervicornis to a
changing environment. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education,
22(1), 22.1.68. https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2253C
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.
Reid, J. W., & Gardner, G. E. (2020). Navigating tensions of research and
teaching: Biology graduate students’ perceptions of the research–teach-
ing nexus within ecological contexts. CBE—Life Sciences Education,
19(3), ar25.
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.
Rowland, S., Pedwell, R., Lawrie, G., Lovie-Toon, J., & Hung, Y. (2016). Do we
need to design course-based undergraduate research experiences for
authenticity? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar79.
Rushin, J. W., De Saix, J., Lumsden, A., Streubel, D. P., Summers, G., &
Bernson, C. (1997). Graduate teaching assistant training: A basis for
improvement of college biology teaching & faculty development? The
American Biology Teacher, 59(2), 86–90.
Russell, J. A. (2009). A survey of basic instructional program graduate teach-
ing assistant development and support processes. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 80(4), 792–795.
Russell, C. B., Bentley, A. K., Wink, D., Weaver, G. C., & Basu-Dutt, S. (2010).
The center for authentic science practice in education: Integrating sci-
ence research into the undergraduate laboratory curriculum. Making
Chemistry Relevant: Strategies for Including All Students in a Learn-
er-Sensitive Classroom Environment, 193–206.
Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benets of under-
graduate research experiences. Science, 316, 548–549.
Ryker, K., & McConnell, D. (2014). Can graduate teaching assistants teach
inquiry-based geology labs eectively? Journal of College Science
Teaching, 44(1), 56–63.
Santillan, K., Eddy, S., & Olimpo, J. (2022). The influence of mentoring
on students’ researcher self-ecacy, sense of belonging, perceptions of
instructor trust, and research persistence in the context of an online in-
troductory biology CURE [Research talk]. 2022 Society for the Advance-
ment of Biology Education Research Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.
Schussler, E. E., Read, Q., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K., & Ferzli, M. (2015). Pre-
paring biology graduate teaching assistants for their roles as instructors:
An assessment of institutional approaches. CBE—Life Sciences Educa-
tion, 14(3), ar31.
Science Education Research Center. (2023). CUREnet. Retrieved July 1, 2023,
from https://serc.carleton.edu/curenet/index.html
Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing
the benets of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences:
First ndings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88(4), 493–534.
Shapiro, C., Moberg-Parker, J., Toma, S., Ayon, C., Zimmerman, H.,
Roth-Johnson, E. A., ... & Sanders, E. R. (2015). Comparing the impact of
course-based and apprentice-based research experiences in a life sci-
ence laboratory curriculum. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Educa-
tion, 16(2), 186–197.
CBE—Life Sciences Education • 22:es4, Winter 2023 22:es4, 11
CURE TA Professional Development
Shortlidge, E. E., Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2016). Faculty perspectives on
developing and teaching course-based undergraduate research experi-
ences. BioScience, 66(1), 54–62.
Shortlidge, E. E., Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2017). Each to their own
CURE: Faculty who teach course-based undergraduate research experi-
ences report why you too should teach a CURE. Journal of Microbiology
& Biology Education, 18(2). https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/
jmbe.v18i2.1260
Shortlidge, E. E., & Brownell, S. E. (2016). How to assess your CURE: A
practical guide for instructors of course-based undergraduate re-
search experiences. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education,
17(3), 399–408.
Shortlidge, E. E., & Eddy, S. (2018). The trade-o between graduate student
research and teaching: A myth? PloS one, 13(6), e0199576.
Shortlidge, E. E., Jolley, A., Shaulskiy, S., Geraghty Ward, E., Lorentz, C. N., &
O’Connell, K. (2021). A resource for understanding and evaluating out-
comes of undergraduate eld experiences. Ecology and Evolution,
11(23), 16387–16408.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teach-
ing. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Spell, R. M., Guinan, J. A., Miller, K. R., & Beck, C. W. (2014). Redening au-
thentic research experiences in introductory biology laboratories and
barriers to their implementation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1),
102–110.
Staneld, E., Slown, C. D., Sedlacek, Q., & Worcester, S. E. (2022). A course-
based undergraduate research experience (CURE) in biology: Develop-
ing systems thinking through eld experiences in restoration ecology.
CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(2), ar20.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educa-
tional success for all students, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315297293
Sundberg, M. D., Armstrong, J. E., & Wischusen, E. W. (2005). A reappraisal of
the status of introductory biology laboratory education in US colleges &
universities. The American Biology Teacher, 67(9), 525–529.
Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2006). Approaches to biology teaching and learning:
On integrating pedagogical training into the graduate experiences of
future science faculty. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5(1), 1–6.
Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., & Hunter, A.-B. (2011). What experiences help stu-
dents become scientists?: A comparative study of research and other
sources of personal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates.
The Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 357–388.
Thompson, S. K., Neill, C. J., Wiederhoeft, E., & Cotner, S. (2016). A model
for a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) in a eld
setting. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(3), 469–471.
Tuma, T. T., Adams, J. D., Hultquist, B. C., & Dolan, E. L. (2021). The dark side of
development: A systems characterization of the negative mentoring ex-
periences of doctoral students. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(2), ar16.
Turner, A. N., Challa, A. K., & Cooper, K. M. (2021). Student perceptions of
authoring a publication stemming from a course-based undergraduate
research experience (CURE). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(3), ar46.
Weaver, G. C., Russell, C. B., & Wink, D. J. (2008). Inquiry-based and re-
search-based laboratory pedagogies in undergraduate science. Nature
Chemical Biology, 4(10), 577–580.
Zehnder, C. (2016). Assessment of graduate teaching assistants enrolled in a
teaching techniques course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(1),
76–83.
