Fly-CURE, a multi-institutional CURE using Drosophila, increases students' confidence, sense of belonging, and persistence in research

Julie A Merkle; Olivier Devergne; Seth M Kelly; Paula A Croonquist; Cory J Evans; Melanie A Hwalek; Victoria L Straub; Danielle R Hamill; Alexandra Peister; David P Puthoff; Ken J Saville; Jamie L Siders; Zully J Villanueva Gonzalez; Jacqueline K Wittke-Thompson; Kayla L Bieser; Joyce Stamm; Alysia D Vrailas-Mortimer; Jacob D Kagey

doi:10.1128/jmbe.00245-22

. 2023 Sep 21;24(3):e00245-22. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22

Fly-CURE, a multi-institutional CURE using Drosophila, increases students' confidence, sense of belonging, and persistence in research

Julie A Merkle ¹, Olivier Devergne ^2,^#, Seth M Kelly ^3,^#, Paula A Croonquist ^4,^#, Cory J Evans ^5,^#, Melanie A Hwalek ^6,^#, Victoria L Straub ^6,^#, Danielle R Hamill ⁷, Alexandra Peister ⁸, David P Puthoff ⁹, Ken J Saville ¹⁰, Jamie L Siders ¹¹, Zully J Villanueva Gonzalez ¹², Jacqueline K Wittke-Thompson ¹³, Kayla L Bieser ¹⁴, Joyce Stamm ¹, Alysia D Vrailas-Mortimer ^15,¹⁶, Jacob D Kagey ^17,^✉

Editor: Jack Wang¹⁸

¹University of Evansville, Evansville, Indiana, USA

²Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA

³The College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio, USA

⁴Anoka Ramsey Community College, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

⁵Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California, USA

⁶SPEC Associates, Southfield, Michigan, USA

⁷Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio, USA

⁸Morehouse College, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

⁹Frostburg State University, Frostburg, Maryland, USA

¹⁰Albion College, Albion, Michigan, USA

¹¹Ohio Northern University, Ada, Ohio, USA

¹²Western New Mexico University, Silver City, New Mexico, USA

¹³University of St. Francis, Joliet, Illinois, USA

¹⁴Nevada State College, Henderson, Nevada, USA

¹⁵Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, USA

¹⁶Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

¹⁷University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, Michigan, USA

¹⁸The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

^✉

Address correspondence to Jacob D. Kagey, kageyja@udmercy.edu

Olivier Devergne and Seth M. Kelly contributed equally to this article.

Paula A. Croonquist, Cory J. Evans, Melanie A. Hwalek, and Victoria L. Straub contributed equally to this article.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Contributed equally.

Roles

Julie A Merkle: Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Olivier Devergne: Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Seth M Kelly: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Paula A Croonquist: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Cory J Evans: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Melanie A Hwalek: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Victoria L Straub: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Danielle R Hamill: Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Alexandra Peister: Investigation, Writing – review and editing

David P Puthoff: Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Ken J Saville: Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Jamie L Siders: Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Zully J Villanueva Gonzalez: Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Jacqueline K Wittke-Thompson: Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Kayla L Bieser: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review and editing

Joyce Stamm: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review and editing

Alysia D Vrailas-Mortimer: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review and editing

Jacob D Kagey: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

Jack Wang: Editor

PMCID: PMC10720528 PMID: 38107988

ABSTRACT

The Fly-CURE is a genetics-focused multi-institutional Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) that provides undergraduate students with hands-on research experiences within a course. Through the Fly-CURE, undergraduate students at diverse types of higher education institutions across the United States map and characterize novel mutants isolated from a genetic screen in Drosophila melanogaster. To date, more than 20 mutants have been studied across 20 institutions, and our scientific data have led to eleven publications with more than 500 students as authors. To evaluate the impact of the Fly-CURE experience on students, we developed and validated assessment tools to identify students’ perceived research self-efficacy, sense of belonging in science, and intent to pursue additional research opportunities. Our data, collected over three academic years and involving 14 institutions and 480 students, show gains in these metrics after completion of the Fly-CURE across all student subgroups analyzed, including comparisons of gender, academic status, racial and ethnic groups, and parents’ educational background. Importantly, our data also show differential gains in the areas of self-efficacy and interest in seeking additional research opportunities between Fly-CURE students with and without prior research experience, illustrating the positive impact of research exposure (dosage) on student outcomes. Altogether, our data indicate that the Fly-CURE experience has a significant impact on students’ efficacy with research methods, sense of belonging to the scientific research community, and interest in pursuing additional research experiences.

KEYWORDS: Drosophila, CURE, undergraduate research, pedagogy, genetics, STEM, education

INTRODUCTION

As undergraduate science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) education continues to evolve and make improvements that facilitate the training of scientists from diverse backgrounds, it is becoming increasingly apparent that an authentic research experience is key for promoting student persistence within STEM majors and for adequate preparation for future scientific careers (1 –3). There has been a national call for all STEM majors to have such an experience during their undergraduate education (4, 5); however, a significant challenge to this call is simple logistics. While some undergraduates do participate in a traditional apprentice-based research experience, there is not enough research lab capacity to accommodate all undergraduate STEM majors (6). One response to limited research opportunities has been to incorporate authentic research experience(s) into the curriculum. Such courses, often referred to as Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs), provide a research experience to a larger number of students (approximately 20–25 students per faculty or teaching assistant mentor) within a single iteration (6 –8). Several CURE-type endeavors have been developed and, consequently, have provided research opportunities to a far greater number of STEM undergraduates than would have been possible through mentored bench research alone (1,7, 9 –13).

CURE participation positively impacts science education in several ways. In comparison with traditional apprenticeships, CUREs not only reach more students, but also represent a more inclusive approach to research (6, 14). Student participation in CUREs has been shown to enhance critical thinking skills (13, 15), increase learning gains, bolster scientific identity (16, 17), and increase interest in science and scientific research (18). Each of these outcomes is likely an important factor driving the positive correlation between student participation in CUREs and increased STEM retention rates, including for underrepresented minority students (1–2,3).

Faculty, departments, and the scientific community at large can also be positively impacted by implementing CURE pedagogies. Faculty at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) typically have a heavy teaching requirement (teaching three to four classes per semester is not uncommon) that often comes with the additional expectation of research productivity (19). In many cases, this is also true for teaching-intensive faculty at R1 research institutions. CUREs provide faculty with an opportunity to combine teaching and research into a single endeavor that can, when properly structured and implemented, produce publishable work (both research data collected/analyzed by the students and pedagogical data measuring the impact on students) (2, 18, 20, 21). However, setting up a successful CURE comes with many challenges, the largest of which is typically the identification of a research project that is feasible for undergraduates working within the confines of a laboratory course (meeting one to two times per week, 3–5 h total), budget-friendly, and longitudinally sustainable. The implementation of CUREs by regional and national consortia has been successful in overcoming many of these challenges. Efforts such as Science Education Alliance (SEA-PHAGES), Genomics Education Partnership (GEP), and Small World Initiative, have had success with CURE implementation at multiple sites, due in part to offering established, ready-to-go projects that entice faculty participation by reducing the burden of identifying a suitable research project and developing the infrastructure to support these projects (22 –24). Not only does this approach provide research opportunities for more students, but it also increases the amount of valuable undergraduate-generated data. In addition, faculty and student participants can be included as authors on research papers that include their contributing data (2,25 –36). Here we describe a new CURE consortium called Fly-CURE that utilizes Drosophila melanogaster as a research model in undergraduate biology laboratory courses.

The Fly-CURE was established in 2012 at the University of Detroit Mercy and centers on characterizing and mapping novel EMS-induced mutations isolated in a genetic screen for genes that regulate cell growth and cell division within the developing Drosophila eye (37). In the Fly-CURE, students start with an uncharacterized mutant and, in its analysis, learn about and utilize a variety of techniques commonly taught in more traditional undergraduate genetics laboratory courses. The Fly-CURE curriculum includes but is not limited to classical Mendelian genetics, molecular genetics, and bioinformatics. Over the last 10 years, students participating in the Fly-CURE have characterized over 20 novel Drosophila mutations, which have been published in 11 publications and included 581 student co-authors (25, 28 –36, 38). Currently, the Fly-CURE is being taught at over 20 institutions across the United States. The institutional diversity of the Fly-CURE consortium has allowed us to measure the impact of the Fly-CURE pedagogy on a variety of student attitudes, including their sense of belonging in STEM, research competency, and intent to continue toward a STEM career. We also evaluated the effect of dosage on these metrics, where dosage refers to research experiences that a student participated in prior to participation in the Fly-CURE research project. Although the intensity, quality, and impacts of research experiences may differ broadly, there are attributes shared among all research-associated experiences that impact students. Thus, we sought to evaluate the impacts of the Fly-CURE by comparing students with and without any research exposure prior to participation in the Fly-CURE. Assessing the impact of research experience “dosage” on STEM undergraduates participating in the Fly-CURE consortium may shed light upon whether there is a critical number and/or types of research experiences that impact students’ retention and ultimate success in STEM fields.

METHODS

Fly-CURE consortium: institutions, faculty, and student participants

Matching pre- and post-survey data were gathered from 480 Fly-CURE students over three academic years: 2019–2020, 2020–2021, and 2021–2022. The demographics of the participating schools and students are detailed in Appendix 1 and shown in Fig. 2. In the years of data collection and in the data presented, there were 15 faculty who implemented the Fly-CURE across 14 institutions. Institutional and faculty data include all institutions (n = 15) and faculty (n = 16) in the Fly-CURE consortium. Only one institution (Morehouse College) did not collect student assessment data due to the class starting before Institutional Review Board approval could be obtained. Information about the type of course in which Fly-CURE was implemented, the modules used in the class, and whether or not the faculty instructor had previous research experience using D. melanogaster were collected from each faculty member in the Fly-CURE consortium. The Carnegie classification and Minority Serving Institution (MSI) status of each institution in the consortium were also collected from the American Council on Education (39) and the United States Department of Education (40).

All participating students were asked to complete a voluntary online survey before beginning (pre-course) and after completing (post-course) a Fly-CURE course offering (Appendix 2; see Fig. 1A for workflow). Approval to assess students was obtained by each participating institution from their Institutional Review Board. After each semester, responses were collected and analyzed by SPEC Associates (Southfield, MI, USA), an independent analytics firm specializing in evaluation and research. Confidentiality was maintained by providing each instructor with a unique link to the online surveys that could be distributed to students. SurveyMonkey was the online platform used, with completed surveys being directly received by SPEC Associates without the instructors’ ability to see responses. The components of the pre- and post-course surveys used for this study are available in Appendix 2.

Fig 1 — The Fly-CURE is a modular course-embedded research project. (A) Students enrolled in the Fly-CURE took an initial survey in which students reported their perceived self-efficacy in research and sense of belonging in science. The pre-course survey was also used to collect student demographic information. An FRT/Flp-based approach was used to create mitotic clones in *Drosophila* eye tissue where tissue homozygous for an EMS-induced mutation was marked by red pigment and wild-type tissue was marked by the absence of eye pigment. The growth ability of tissue homozygous for the EMS mutation was assessed by comparing the amount of red (mutant) to white (wild-type) tissue within the adult fly eye. In parallel, the genomic locus of the mutation on chromosome 2R was then determined by complementation mapping with defined chromosome deletions. Once this initial “discovery” phase was completed, students initiated a more hypothesis-driven “inquiry” phase of the project. Bioinformatics and molecular approaches were used to design PCR primers and then amplify and sequence a portion of the chromosomal region that fails to complement the mutation. Finally, a post-course survey was implemented to measure the impact of the Fly-CURE on students’ perceived self-efficacy in research, sense of belonging in science, and intent to pursue additional research experiences or scientific careers. (B) Different combinations of the Fly-CURE components can be combined in a modular format, depending on the learning objectives of the course where the Fly-CURE was implemented (also see Appendix 1). (C) While most courses implementing the Fly-CURE were genetics courses with a lab or a stand-alone genetics lab course, the Fly-CURE was incorporated into a variety of other undergraduate Biology courses (Appendix 1). (D) 53% of Fly-CURE instructors (8 out of 15) had previously worked in a research setting using *Drosophila melanogaster*.

From the 895 students invited to participate in the surveys, we received 740 completed pre-course surveys and 683 completed post-course surveys. Pre- and post-survey responses were matched based on answers to non-identifying questions such as childhood home address. Student attentiveness was also assessed using one inattentive item on both the pre- and post-survey. Students who did not respond accordingly were eliminated from the analysis. Ternovski and Orr provide evidence that survey respondents who are inattentive also provide less reliable demographic data and are systematically different from attentive respondents (41). Following analysis for student attentiveness and pre-/post-survey pairing, 480 surveys, or 65% of the attentively completed pre-course surveys, were included in our current study. The matched pre-/post-survey sample has similar demographics to the entire sample of students who took the pre-course survey. The number of surveys used in each comparative analysis differed because some students responded to only a subset of the survey items.

Participants identified their gender as female (69%), male (28%), their gender was not listed (1%), or they preferred not to say (2%). Participants were from ethnic or racial groups classified by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as underrepresented in STEM (27%) and groups not considered underrepresented in STEM (73%). Demographic groups who were considered underrepresented in STEM were the following: Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders (original peoples), American Indian or Alaskan Native, Black or African American (including African and Caribbean), and Hispanic or Latino. Demographic groups who were not considered underrepresented in STEM included students who identified as White, Asian (including subcontinent and Philippines), and of Middle Eastern descent. Participants also reported whether either parent attended any college (continued-generation college students, 71%) or neither parent attended any college (first-generation college students, 29%). Moreover, student participants ranged in academic year (4% first-year students, 34% second-year students, 31% third-year students, 29% fourth-year students, and 2% students who already had bachelor’s degrees). For our study, we combined first- and second-year students (38% of participants) and third-year students and beyond (62%). The matched pre- and post-survey sample was compared to the entire sample of students who reported demographic information in the pre-course survey and determined to represent similar demographics.

Measure of research experience and dosage

Pre-course surveys asked participants to report any research-associated experiences prior to the Fly-CURE. Refer to pre-survey question 7 (Appendix 2) for the specific experiences listed. Students who chose “yes” to any of these experiences were considered as having prior research exposure, while those who did not choose “yes” to any of these questions were considered as not having prior research exposure.

Fly-CURE outcome measures

Survey items for assessing research self-efficacy and sense of belonging were adapted from items used in the evaluation of the National Institutes of Health’s Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) initiative. Many of the BUILD items were modified from the Higher Education Research Institute’s surveys which have been conducted in colleges and universities for more than 50 years (42). Some of the items were adapted so they could be used as retrospective pre-/post-survey items. This retrospective pre-/post-survey method of measuring outcomes is commonly used when there is a possibility that students’ understanding of the constructs, such as what a research-intensive science laboratory course is, changes as a result of participating in the course and eliminates the possibility of a response shift bias in the data (43). For each evaluated outcome, students self-reported their pre- and post-course confidence or agreement with specific matrices using a 1–5 Likert scale.

Research self-efficacy

Pre- and post-course surveys asked students to report their perceived abilities and confidence for eight statements (Appendix 2, pre-survey question 8 and post-survey question 4). The scores from all eight questions were added together, resulting in a scale ranging from 8 to 40. Coefficient alpha, the generally accepted measure of the internal consistency of items that comprise a scale, was used to assess scale reliability (44). Psychometric analysis of the pre- and post-course survey data revealed that this scale had a coefficient alpha of 0.918 for the pre-survey and 0.975 for the post-course survey, indicating these items measure the same construct.

Sense of belonging in science

Pre- and post-course surveys asked students to report their perceived agreement with four statements (Appendix 2, pre-survey question 9 and post-survey question 5). To determine scale scores, the results from all four questions were added together, resulting in a scale of 4–20. Psychometric analysis revealed that this scale had coefficient alphas of 0.863 and 0.935 for the pre- and post-course surveys, respectively (44).

Intent to pursue additional research opportunities

Post-course surveys asked participants to report their perceived intentions before and after taking the course. Students reported their likelihood to do each of the following: (i) enroll in another research-intensive science laboratory course; (ii) pursue or continue independent research in a science laboratory; and (iii) pursue a career as a scientist (Appendix 2, post-survey questions 1–3). The scores from all three questions were analyzed separately and added together on a scale ranging from 3 to 15. Psychometric analysis showed that this scale had a coefficient alpha of 0.861 for the before-course survey items and 0.789 for the now survey items (44).

Statistical analyses

Independent groups and paired t tests were used to assess the statistical significance of differences in the means within the same students from pre- to post-course and retrospectively (paired t tests) and between different groups of students (independent groups t tests). Levene’s test for Equality of Variances was used to test for homogeneity of variance. Bonferroni’s correction was used to establish the P value threshold for significance (45), which was set at P ≤ 0.004 for research self-efficacy and sense of belonging, and P ≤ 0.001 for intent to pursue additional research opportunities.

The mean scores for the three outcome scales were calculated in two ways: as scale score means and as gain score means. Two scale score means are calculated for each outcome, a pre- and a post-course scale score mean, representing the average of student scale scores. The scale score mean may underestimate change because some students may have rated themselves the highest possible score on the pre-course survey. If they also rate themselves the highest possible score on the post-course survey, the difference between the pre- and post-course scores is 0. These students may have rated themselves even higher on the post-course survey, but the maximum possible score presented a ceiling for them. Thus, the scale score mean includes these zeros and deflates the mean score for the group. To account for this, a second mean score was calculated using the normalized gain score. The gain score removes students with the highest possible pre-course score from the analysis and examines the degree of change among students who could change because they did not reach the ceiling score on the pre-course survey (46). The equation used to calculate the normalized gain score is: Normalized Gain = (Post-score − Pre-score)/(Maximum possible score − Pre-score). The data presented herein include both the scale score mean and the mean gain scores for all statistical comparisons.

Limitations of study design and analysis

There are some limitations of these analyses to acknowledge. First, our collected data are quantitative, student-reported measurements. This does not include qualitative data, as collected through focus groups or other means. Due to the level of funding and size of our consortium, collecting qualitative data were not feasible for this study. Additionally, we decided to utilize retrospective post-tests (RPTs) to collect student assessment data. The use of RPTs has been argued to be the best mechanism for measuring gains, as those evaluated in this study (43, 47). In future studies, we hope to expand the analysis on student gains and further subdivide our quantitative data (e.g., by institution type).

Organization of the Fly-CURE

At the beginning of each semester, all required Drosophila stocks were shipped to participating institutions. Drosophila mutant stocks contain previously generated EMS-induced mutations on the right arm of chromosome 2 (2R) (38). These mutations were identified based on homozygous recessive lethality and a growth-associated phenotype in the Drosophila eye when cell death is also blocked, but the genomic locus of the mutations is unknown (25, 28 –34, 38). The identified mutants serve as the basis for phenotypic eye characterization, complementation mapping, and molecular analysis modules of the Fly-CURE (Fig. 1A and B).

RESULTS

The Fly-CURE focuses on the genomic mapping and phenotypic characterization of EMS-induced mutant lines involved in Drosophila eye development

The Fly-CURE is a lab research project that includes both an initial “Discovery Phase” and a subsequent “Inquiry Phase” (Fig. 1A). An initial pre-survey (Appendix 2) is first completed by all participating students to gather information about general student demographics, prior research experience, research self-efficacy, and sense of belonging in science. Students then typically complete an initial “Discovery Phase” of the project to characterize the eye tissue growth phenotype caused by the EMS-induced mutation and use complementation mapping of the lethal phenotype with a series of defined chromosomal deletions (48) to identify the genomic locus where the mutation responsible for the observed phenotype may be found. All recessive lethal EMS-induced mutations being investigated, as well as the chromosomal deficiencies used for complementation mapping, are maintained as heterozygotes using a second chromosome balancer causing curly wings (a dominant phenotypic marker; Fig. 1A). Therefore, for crosses between the Drosophila mutant stock and stocks containing chromosomal deficiencies along 2R, students use stereomicroscopes to easily score for the presence (complementation) or absence (failure to complement) of straight-winged flies (those carrying the mutation and deficiency) among the progeny. Since the chromosomal deletions used in the first round of complementation mapping are relatively large and often lack several dozen to hundreds of genes (48), a second round of complementation tests with smaller deletions and/or chosen null alleles of individual genes within the specific genomic region identified in the first round of complementation mapping can be utilized to identify a smaller region where the mutation might be located. Once non-complementing deficiencies are identified, this concludes the “Discovery Phase” of the CURE.

During the “Inquiry Phase,” students develop hypotheses about candidate genes within the genomic region that fails to complement lethality of the mutation. Student-derived hypotheses usually focus on why mutations within a specific gene might lead to the observed eye tissue phenotype or recessive lethality. Typically, students choose genes that have been previously annotated as being involved in cellular growth control, apoptosis, the cell cycle, or similar processes. In some cases, the EMS mutation fails to complement a mutant allele of a specific gene by the second round of crosses (28, 30, 31, 34), allowing students to focus their hypothesis generation and subsequent molecular analyses on a single gene. Students then isolate genomic DNA from the mutant and control fly stocks, design PCR primers, and amplify a small (500–1,000 nucleotide) region of their chosen gene. The sequence of the amplified region from both the mutant and control stocks is then determined by Sanger sequencing to identify possible differences between the heterozygous mutant stock and the wild-type control. Then, students use bioinformatics approaches to understand protein structure and/or evolutionary conservation of the candidate gene and often present their findings to the rest of the class. Finally, students analyze, summarize, and connect the data acquired. Different pedagogical assessments are used across the consortium, including formal lab reports, poster presentations, and micropublication-style manuscripts. At the end of the semester, a post-survey was completed to assess whether the semester-long Fly-CURE impacted students' sense of belonging within the scientific research community, feelings of self-efficacy in research, and motivation to pursue other future research experiences or STEM careers.

Fly-CURE is a modular research experience that can be implemented in a variety of laboratory classes

The modular nature of Fly-CURE allows for components to be organized or omitted to meet the learning objectives and scheduling variability of different courses (Fig. 1B). For example, most courses that have implemented the Fly-CURE have been upper-level genetics classes that also contain a laboratory component (Fig. 1C, n = 9). These combined lecture and lab courses, along with stand-alone genetics laboratory courses that lack a separate lecture component (n = 4), typically utilize all modules of the Fly-CURE (Fig. 1B, version 1). However, the Fly-CURE has also been implemented in Introductory Biology (n = 1), a sophomore-level Molecular Biology course (n = 1), and Anatomy and Physiology (n = 1). In these non-genetics-centered classes, other variations of the Fly-CURE have been implemented that lack one or more of the modules contained in Fly-CURE version 1 (Fig. 1B). Thus, while Fly-CURE has been mostly implemented in genetics courses, its adaptability and student-focused nature have allowed a wide variety of courses to participate in this course-embedded research experience.

While the modularity and adaptability of the Fly-CURE have allowed for its implementation in a variety of courses, we also wanted to assess whether faculty using this CURE could do so successfully without prior research experience with Drosophila. We surveyed faculty who had implemented the Fly-CURE and found that only slightly more than half (53%, n = 8), had previously trained as a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow in a research lab where D. melanogaster was utilized as a genetic model organism (Fig. 1D). Taken together, these data suggest that Fly-CURE can be widely implemented in a variety of courses and that prior training or experience in a Drosophila research lab by the faculty instructor is not a requisite for Fly-CURE implementation. Furthermore, this CURE was successfully taught using different instructional modes, including in-person, virtual, and hybrid, further highlighting the adaptability of the Fly-CURE (see Appendix 1).

The Fly-CURE provides research experiences at a range of institutions and for a broad spectrum of student participants

One motivation for the development of the Fly-CURE was to establish opportunities for collaboration between faculty and students at different institutions. Faculty were recruited to participate in Fly-CURE through a variety of methods, including discussions at conferences, social media, and word-of-mouth. The cohort of faculty collaborating on the Fly-CURE spanned several types of institutions (Fig. 2A). Approximately equal numbers of faculty at PUIs (n = 6) and non-R2 graduate degree-granting institutions (n = 5) have implemented the Fly-CURE into at least one course. In addition, the Fly-CURE has been implemented at R2 institutions (n = 3) and at a community college (n = 1), where undergraduate research experiences are typically limited due to a variety of factors including teaching load and institutional resources (6, 49, 50). Approximately 20% of institutions where the Fly-CURE has been taught over the last 3 years are also classified as MSIs (Fig. 2B). Regular virtual meetings between participating faculty serve to foster collaboration between classes characterizing the same Drosophila mutation. These collaborative projects have also culminated in eight publications in microPublication Biology consisting entirely of student-generated data (25, 28 –34). Students participating in the Fly-CURE each semester may be offered the opportunity to take the lead on these manuscripts. Additionally, some instructors assign a report following a micropublication format that may be used to produce the first draft of a manuscript. Altogether, these approaches allow students to consolidate and analyze their data, produce figures, and encourage students to take ownership of their work.

Among all students who have participated in the Fly-CURE, 27% self-identify as belonging to a demographic group underrepresented in STEM (Fig. 2C), and 29% of students are first-generation college students (Fig. 2D). In addition, only slightly more than half (52.5%) of students had any research exposure before the Fly-CURE (Fig. 2E). Of the students who previously participated in a research experience, most had participated in a course-based research experience (Fig. 2F), while only 26% of students had participated in a mentored apprenticeship-style research experience. Given the significant positive impacts that research experiences have on undergraduate STEM majors (51) and the dearth of mentored research experiences typically available to many undergraduate students, these data suggest that CUREs provide an important alternative to traditional apprentice-style research positions. While first-year undergraduate research experiences have been shown to be particularly important for the retention of STEM majors (52), the correlation between the number of research experiences a student participates in and student outcomes has been less well-studied. In particular, course-embedded research experiences like the Fly-CURE provide an additional “dose” of research to a large number of students, and in so doing, further promote student self-efficacy in research, sense of belonging in the scientific research community, and pursuit of STEM careers.

Impact of the Fly-CURE on student self-efficacy in research

To evaluate the impact of the Fly-CURE experience on students’ research self-efficacy, sense of belonging in science, and student interest in pursuing additional research experiences, pre- and/or post-course surveys were used to ask students about their confidence or level of agreement with multiple statements focused on these areas. Likert scale responses for questions focused on each metric were tallied to generate scale scores. Lower scale scores represent less confidence or agreement with associated statements, while higher scale scores represent students who reported more confidence or agreement with included statements.

As a first measurement of Fly-CURE effectiveness, we analyzed students’ sense of research self-efficacy. Students ranked their confidence in response to eight statements pertaining to this metric on pre- and post-course surveys (see Methods and Appendix 2). Students reported increased self-efficacy in research from pre- to post-course, shown as an increase in scale score means (Fig. 3A) and as a mean gain score (Fig. 3B). We were also interested in whether the Fly-CURE closed gaps in research self-efficacy for specific student subgroups that are underrepresented in STEM, thereby providing a path to increased diversity in STEM. Interestingly, female students reported lower confidence in research pre-course (28.0 for females and 29.2 for males) and reached a score similar to males in self-efficacy post-course (31.5 for females and 31.0 for males) (Fig. 3C), resulting in a gain in research self-efficacy for both male and female students (Fig. 3D). Although all student subgroups reported significant gains in their self-efficacy in research post-course, there were no statistically significant differences in the reported gain scores for research self-efficacy between students in the evaluated subgroups, including race and ethnicity (Fig. 3E; Fig. S1A and B), education background of parents (Fig. 3E; Fig. S1C and D), and academic year (Fig. S1E and F).

Fig 3 — Self-efficacy in scientific research of student subgroups before and after completing the Fly-CURE. Through pre- and post-course surveys, students reported their efficacy in specific skills associated with scientific research before and after participating in the Fly-CURE. The survey rating scales for eight questions were combined, resulting in a total possible scale score of 40 (y-axis) per student. The mean self-efficacy pre-course (blue) and post-course (yellow) are shown for all participants (A) and in participant subgroups (**C and E**). (**A and B**) Self-efficacy scale score mean (A; n = 472) and gain score mean (B; n = 458) for all Fly-CURE participants. (**C and D**) Self-efficacy scale score mean (C; n = 129 for males and n = 315 for females) and gain score mean (D; n = 123 for males and n = 308 for females) for male and female participants. (E) Comparison of self-efficacy means pre- and post-course in all students (n = 472), minority students underrepresented in STEM (n = 122), and first-generation college students (n = 133). Error bars represent ± standard error of the mean (±SEM); ns, not significant, P > 0.004; ***P ≤ 0.001, ****P ≤ 0.0001.

Impact of the Fly-CURE on student sense of belonging in the scientific research community

Pre- and post-course surveys were also used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Fly-CURE in increasing student sense of belonging in science by asking students to rate their level of agreement with four statements (see Methods and Appendix 2). Pre- and post-course sense of belonging scales were generated by adding each student’s ratings on the four items.

Similar to their reported gains in research self-efficacy, students reported an increased sense of belonging in the scientific research community post-course compared to pre-course. This is shown as scale score means (Fig. 4A) and as a mean gain score (Fig. 4B). We also compared student subgroups in several demographic categories and found that although all student subgroups reported gains in their feelings of belonging in science post-course, there were no statistically significant differences in the degree of reported gains between subgroups in each evaluated category, including gender (Fig. 4C and D), race and ethnicity (Fig. 4E; Fig. S2A and B), education background of parents (Fig. 4E; Fig. S2C and D), and academic year (Fig. S2E and F). These data suggest that students from underrepresented backgrounds participating in Fly-CURE make similar gains as their peers. It is worth noting that similar to research self-efficacy, female participants reported a lower sense of belonging in science pre-course (12.2) compared to males (13.1), but yet reached a score similar to males post-course (13.8 for females and 14.0 for males) (Fig. 4C). Altogether, these data show that the Fly-CURE experience allows all students to increase their perceived sense of belonging in the scientific research community.

Fig 4 — Sense of belonging in the scientific research community for student subgroups before and after completing the Fly-CURE. Through pre- and post-course surveys, students reported their sense of belonging in the scientific research community before and after participating in the Fly-CURE. The survey rating scales for four questions were combined, resulting in a total possible scale score of 20 (y-axis) per student. The mean scale score for sense of belonging pre-course (blue) and post-course (yellow) are shown for all participants (A) and in participant subgroups (**C and E**). (**A and B**) Sense of belonging scale score mean (A; n = 472) and gain score mean (B; n = 464) for all Fly-CURE participants. (**C and D**) Sense of belonging scale score mean (C; n = 129 for males and n = 315 for females) and gain score mean (D; n = 126 for males and n = 310 for females) for male and female students. (E) Comparison of reported scale score means for sense of belonging for all participants (n = 472), minority students underrepresented in STEM (n = 122), and first-generation college students (n = 133). Error bars, ±SEM; ns, not significant, P > 0.004; ***P ≤ 0.001; ****P ≤ 0.0001.

Impact of the Fly-CURE on student intention to pursue additional research opportunities

To evaluate the effectiveness of the Fly-CURE in increasing student intention to pursue additional research-associated experiences, post-course surveys asked participants to rate their perceived likelihood to seek out additional research opportunities before and after taking the course for three questions (see Methods and Appendix 2). Much like the reported gains in research self-efficacy and sense of belonging in science, students also reported a perceived increase in their intention to pursue additional research experiences after completing the Fly-CURE. This can be observed as scale score means (Fig. 5A), as a mean for each type of experience evaluated (Fig. 5B), and as a mean gain score for each type of experience (Fig. 5C). Interestingly, all student subgroups analyzed tend to start at a similar level of perceived intent to pursue the experiences proposed before the course and have a similar level of intent after the course (Fig. S3). These data highlight the positive impact that the Fly-CURE has on increasing students' intentions to pursue additional research opportunities after participating in a CURE during their undergraduate education.

Fig 5 — Student intent to seek additional research experiences before and after completing the Fly-CURE. Students reported their perceived interest in pursuing additional research-associated experiences before and after completing the Fly-CURE. The survey rating scales for three questions were combined, resulting in a maximum scale score of 15 (y-axis) per student. Students were asked to evaluate their perceived interest before and after the CURE in the categories listed in (**B and C**). (**A and B**) Scale score means for interest in seeking additional research experiences before (blue) compared to after (yellow) the Fly-CURE for all participants. (A) Scale score means across all categories (n = 471). (B) Scale score means for individual categories evaluating student intent to seek additional research opportunities (n = 475 for intent to enroll in another research-intensive science lab course, n = 473 for intent to pursue or continue independent research in a science lab, and n = 473 for intent to pursue a career as a scientist). (C) Gain score means comparing students’ interest in pursuing additional research experiences before and after the Fly-CURE for each category evaluated (n = 418 for intent to enroll in another research-intensive science lab course, n = 417 for intent to pursue or continue independent research in a science lab, and n = 414 for intent to pursue a career as a scientist). Error bars, ±SEM; ns, not significant; P > 0.001; ****P ≤ 0.0001.

Impact of the Fly-CURE on students with and without previous research experiences

While much of our data support previously reported impacts that CUREs have on student gains (49, 53), thereby highlighting the effectiveness of the Fly-CURE experience for students, we were also interested in evaluating the impacts of the Fly-CURE on students with or without research experience prior to taking a Fly-CURE course. In a pre-course survey, students were asked which specific research experiences, if any, they had prior to beginning the Fly-CURE project (see Methods and Appendix 2). Approximately 53% of students reported having had research experience of some kind before the start of the Fly-CURE (Fig. 2E).

After completing the Fly-CURE, students with and without prior research experience each reported gains in self-efficacy in research (Fig. 6A) and sense of belonging in the scientific research community (Fig. 6C), though the differential gain scores for these outcomes between the student groups were not statistically significant (Fig. 6B and D). Several observations are nonetheless noteworthy. First, students without prior research experience reported a greater, albeit non-significant, gain in research self-efficacy after the Fly-CURE (0.18) compared to their peers with prior research experience (0.01) (Fig. 6B). Second, the mean self-efficacy scale score post-course for students without prior research experience (30.7) was greater than the pre-course scale score for students with prior research experience (29.8) (Fig. 6A). Finally, the mean sense of belonging scale score for students without prior research experience post-course (13.3) reached the pre-course scale score for students with prior research experience (13.0) (Fig. 6C). Collectively, these data indicate that participation in Fly-CURE serves as a research experience “dose” that increases students’ research self-efficacy and sense of belonging, regardless of prior research experience.

Next, we evaluated whether the Fly-CURE had differing impacts on students’ intention to pursue additional research opportunities depending on whether students entered the CURE with or without prior research experience. In particular, we questioned whether participating in at least one research experience before the Fly-CURE resulted in a greater increase in students’ intent to seek out future research experiences compared to those without prior research experience. While interest in gaining additional research-related experiences increased significantly for all students (Fig. 5A), much like research self-efficacy and sense of belonging, no statistically significantly differential outcomes were observed for students with or without prior research experience for each of the three future research-associated items evaluated (Fig. 6E through G). In addition, the observed increases were similar regardless of gender (Fig. S3A through C) and academic year (Fig. S3J through K). However, a comparison of underrepresented and non-underrepresented students revealed that post-course increases in all three items measuring intent to pursue future research opportunities were significant for non-underrepresented students, but not for underrepresented students (Fig. S3D through F). Similarly, increases in intent to pursue future research experiences were significant for continued-generation students, but not for first-generation students (Fig. S3G through I).

Surprisingly, students with prior research experience did not exhibit a statistically significant greater gain in intent to pursue another research-related experience than their peers who had not had prior research experience, as shown by gain score means (Fig. 6E through G). These data do not support the hypothesis that increased research exposure positively correlates with increased student interest to persist in research for students who are not already at the highest possible rating for this item at the start of the Fly-CURE (as reported on the retrospective post-course survey). Although not statistically significant, it is interesting to highlight that students with prior research experience reported a slightly increased gain score mean than peers without prior research experience for intent to take another research-intensive course and for intent to pursue or continue research in an independent lab (Fig. 6E through F). Furthermore, when students with the highest level of intention to pursue additional research opportunities prior to the Fly-CURE are included in the comparison (as reported by mean scale scores), then students both with and without prior research experience report significant improvements in their intent to pursue another research-intensive course and a career as a scientist (Fig. S4A and C). The only item in which students with and without prior research experience differed is in pre-/post-course comparisons of intent to pursue or continue independent research in a science lab. Students with prior research experience report a significant increase in their intent to pursue such an opportunity, while students with no prior research experience do not (Fig. S4B).

Altogether, our data show that all students, regardless of demographic profile and previous exposure to research, show a pre-/post-course increase in research self-efficacy and sense of belonging. In addition, students with and without prior research experience show similar post-course increases in their intent to enroll in another research-intensive course and their intent to pursue a career as a scientist, but students with prior experience in research show a greater pre-/post-course increase in intent to pursue or continue independent research in a science lab compared with students without prior research experience.

DISCUSSION

The Fly-CURE is a versatile authentic research experience that can be implemented in a modular fashion across varying course and/or institution types, and by faculty without requiring prior experience with D. melanogaster (Fig. 1B through D; Fig. 2A and B). Thus, the Fly-CURE consortium is a large and diverse sample for measuring the impact of course-embedded research on student attitudes regarding self-efficacy in research, sense of belonging in science, intent to pursue additional research experiences, and the impact of previous research experiences (dosage) on these metrics. Prior studies have suggested that increased time spent on a task and research dosage positively impact student outcomes and persistence in STEM (54, 55). However, it has been suggested that persisting in science may require “a commitment of 10 or more hours per week over two or more semesters of faculty-mentored research” (6, 55). Therefore, we investigated the relationship between research exposure and its impacts on students’ retention, belonging, and confidence in STEM.

Overall, gains were reported by Fly-CURE students for research self-efficacy and sense of belonging, as well as for their intent to persist in STEM. Our analyses show that all participating students, including groups considered underrepresented in STEM, females, and first-generation college students, reported increased confidence in research-associated skills (Fig. 3; Fig. S1), sense of belonging in the scientific research community (Fig. 4; Fig. S2), and for the most part, interest in pursuing additional research experiences (Fig. 5; Fig. S3) after the Fly-CURE. Underrepresented students and first-generation students do not show the same statistically significant increase in intent to pursue additional research opportunities as other students (Fig. S3D through I). This may be partially explained by the smaller sample sizes for underrepresented and first-generation students in our data set. While many of the gains observed in our analyses were previously reported by others, our data support the growing notion that CUREs are inclusive and have a positive impact on undergraduate STEM education (1, 2 –15, 16–17,18).

Further, the fact that Fly-CURE is successfully implemented by faculty at a wide range of institutions (e.g., PUI, CC, MSI, and R2), a variety of courses, and by faculty without prior experience with Drosophila demonstrates the adaptable nature of the Fly-CURE. This also exemplifies the effectiveness of the Fly-CURE consortium in providing authentic research experiences for an increased number of STEM students. Traditional apprentice-based research experiences are often limited in availability, budget, and/or capacity, rendering the need for course-based experiences. However, one of the barriers to starting a CURE is having a project that is sustainable and feasible within the confines of an undergraduate curriculum. Additional barriers to CURE implementation exist for some institutional types such as community colleges (53). Nevertheless, community college students have comparable knowledge and perceived outcomes gains as non-community college counterparts when engaging in centrally supported CUREs, demonstrating the need for these research experiences to be accessible to all students (49, 50). The versatility associated with the modular nature of experiments in the Fly-CURE, as well as the diverse range of institutions at which the Fly-CURE has been successfully implemented, highlight its value for both students and curricula.

One lesson learned through the implementation of the Fly-CURE is that what works for one institution may present obstacles for another. For example, anesthetization with CO₂ or culturing fruit fly stocks using food made in-house may be feasible for some institutions, while using ice packs and ready-made food may be inexpensive and more practical options for other institutions, such as community colleges, with less research capacity. Centralized support, including flexibility of protocols, accessibility of materials and reagents, and biweekly meetings with colleagues to discuss best practices have been critical for this and other CUREs’ implementation (e.g., GEP and SEA-PHAGES) (8). Furthermore, we find that it is effective for faculty members at different institutions to teach concurrent classes where undergraduates are working to confirm research findings on the same mutant. Finally, we recommend, when possible, that undergraduate students be incorporated not only as co-authors on publications from the data collected, but as lead author(s) responsible for writing up the results for peer-reviewed publications.

Although our data support previous studies examining outcomes in research self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and persistence in STEM, few published reports have assessed the impact of research dosage on these outcomes. While some research endeavors have evaluated dosage in terms of how much time a researcher spends on a single project (54, 55), we investigated whether a separate previous research experience had an impact on changes in attitude resulting from the Fly-CURE (Fig. 6; Fig. S4). A few lessons that emerged from our findings could impact how undergraduate STEM departments incorporate research into their curriculum. First, students with no self-reported previous research experience demonstrated increases in both research self-efficacy and sense of belonging after a single semester of research (Fig. 6A and C). This may be one of the most promising aspects of the Fly-CURE as a pedagogy to broaden participation in institutions where research opportunities are especially limited, such as 2-year institutions. Furthermore, while students with prior research experience reported a slight but non-significant gain in their intent to enroll in another research-intensive course and pursue independent research in a science lab compared to their peers without prior experience (Fig. 6E and F), these groups showed indistinguishable gains in their intent to pursue a career as a scientist (Fig. 6G). These data show that students with prior research experience do not greatly surpass classmates without research experience in persistence in STEM, which suggests that a single dose of the Fly-CURE is sufficient to promote increased persistence. It is possible that the slight increase observed for students with research experience to pursue additional opportunities compared to peers without prior experience reflects a level of self-selection of students with prior research exposure to take courses with a CURE component if traditional lab courses are also offered as alternative options. In addition, the data suggest that students’ career plans are generally not subject to research exposure dosage. It is worth noting that the future career plans for many Fly-CURE participants may be in STEM-related careers, such as health professions, but not necessarily in laboratory research. Thereby, we predict that most respondents perceived a “career as a scientist” as a bench or field scientist, rather than a health-centered career. In the future, it would be enlightening to offer more specific career avenues to better appreciate the impact of the Fly-CURE on participants’ career interests.

Overall, these data show that participation in the Fly-CURE, as a single research experience, increases metrics in research self-efficacy, sense of belonging in the scientific research community, and persistence in STEM, even if this CURE is the student’s first research experience. Second, students who had previous research experience also had statistically significant gains after completing the Fly-CURE, suggesting that all students have room to grow for the metrics analyzed in the second (or beyond) research experience. From our data, we cannot conclude how many research experiences would saturate these reported gains; however, we think it is reasonable to hypothesize that additional research experiences would result in additional gains in these areas. Future studies should specifically evaluate whether there is a critical number of research experiences associated with these and other student outcomes. Nonetheless, our data support previous evidence on the impacts of CUREs, thereby further underlining the importance for undergraduate STEM departments to incorporate one (or more) research experiences into the standardized curriculum.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank all Fly-CURE students who completed surveys and contributed to this work, as well as Clare Kron, Elizabeth Taylor, Hemin Shah, and Sandesh Pandit at NIU. The authors thank also to the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center, especially Kevin Cook and Cale Whitworth, for generously providing stocks. Figure. 1A was made using BioRender.com.

Contributor Information

Jacob D. Kagey, Email: kageyja@udmercy.edu.

Jack Wang, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

FUNDING

The research was supported by NSF IUSE grant 2021146 to J.D.K., K.L.B., J.S., and A.D.V.-M. and NIH ReBUILDetroit grants UL1GM118982, TL4GM118983, and RL5GM118981 to J.D.K., M.A.H., and V.L.S.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

The following material is available online at https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.

Supplemental figure legends. jmbe.00245-22-s0001.docx.

Legends of Fig. S1 to S4.

Click here for additional data file.^{(13.4KB, docx)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF1

Appendix 1. jmbe.00245-22-s0002.docx.

Supplemental information.

Click here for additional data file.^{(24.9KB, docx)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF2

Appendix 2. jmbe.00245-22-s0003.docx.

Fly-CURE course pre-survey (selected questions).

Click here for additional data file.^{(205.1KB, docx)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF3

Figure S1. jmbe.00245-22-s0004.tif.

Reported self-efficacy in research for student subgroups before and after completing the Fly-CURE.

Click here for additional data file.^{(3.2MB, tif)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF4

Figure S2. jmbe.00245-22-s0005.tif.

Reported sense of belonging in research for student subgroups before and after completing the Fly-CURE.

Click here for additional data file.^{(3MB, tif)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF5

Figure S3. jmbe.00245-22-s0006.tif.

Reported intent to seek additional research experiences for student subgroups before and after completing the Fly-CURE.

Click here for additional data file.^{(5.2MB, tif)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF6

Figure S4. jmbe.00245-22-s0007.tif.

Reported intent to seek additional research experiences in students with and without research experience prior to the Fly-CURE.

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.6MB, tif)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF7

ASM does not own the copyrights to Supplemental Material that may be linked to, or accessed through, an article. The authors have granted ASM a non-exclusive, world-wide license to publish the Supplemental Material files. Please contact the corresponding author directly for reuse.

REFERENCES

1. Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, Betancur L, Bobrownicki A, Cresawn SG, Garlena RA, Jacobs-Sera D, Kaufmann N, Pope WH, Russell DA, et al. 2017. An inclusive research education Community (iREC): Impact of the SEA-PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:13531–13536. 10.1073/pnas.1718188115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Olson JM, Evans CJ, Ngo KT, Kim HJ, Nguyen JD, Gurley KGH, Ta T, Patel V, Han L, Truong-N KT, et al. 2019. Expression-based cell lineage analysis in Drosophila through a course-based research experience for early undergraduates. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics 9:3791–3800. 10.1534/g3.119.400541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Rodenbusch SE, Hernandez PR, Simmons SL, Dolan EL. 2016. Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE Life Sci Educ 15:ar20. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Woodin T, Carter VC, Fletcher L. 2010. Vision and change in biology undergraduate education, a call for action—initial responses. CBE Life Sci Educ 9:71–73. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-03-0044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education » about V&C: a call to action (2011). Available from: https://visionandchange.org/about-vc-a-call-to-action-2011. Retrieved 29 Nov 2022.
6. Bangera G, Brownell SE. 2014. Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE Life Sci Educ 13:602–606. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Shaffer CD, Alvarez C, Bailey C, Barnard D, Bhalla S, Chandrasekaran C, Chandrasekaran V, Chung H-M, Dorer DR, Du C, Eckdahl TT, Poet JL, Frohlich D, Goodman AL, Gosser Y, Hauser C, Hoopes LLM, Johnson D, Jones CJ, Kaehler M, Kokan N, Kopp OR, Kuleck GA, McNeil G, Moss R, Myka JL, Nagengast A, Morris R, Overvoorde PJ, Shoop E, Parrish S, Reed K, Regisford EG, Revie D, Rosenwald AG, Saville K, Schroeder S, Shaw M, Skuse G, Smith C, Smith M, Spana EP, Spratt M, Stamm J, Thompson JS, Wawersik M, Wilson BA, Youngblom J, Leung W, Buhler J, Mardis ER, Lopatto D, Elgin SCR. 2010. The genomics education partnership: successful integration of research into laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutions. CBE Life Sci Educ 9:55–69. doi: 10.1187/09-11-0087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Elgin SCR, Hauser C, Holzen TM, Jones C, Kleinschmit A, Leatherman J, Genomics Education Partnership . 2017. The GEP: crowd-sourcing big data analysis with undergraduates. Trends Genet 33:81–85. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2016.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Tootle T, Hoffmann D, Allen A, Spracklen A, Groen C, Kelpsch D. 2019. Research and teaching: mini-course-based undergraduate research experience: impact on student understanding of STEM research and interest in STEM programs. J Coll Sci Teach 048. doi: 10.2505/4/jcst19_048_06_44 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10. Delventhal R, Steinhauer J. 2020. A course-based undergraduate research experience examining neurodegeneration in Drosophila melanogaster teaches students to think, communicate, and perform like scientists. PLoS One 15:e0230912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Mills A, Jaganatha V, Cortez A, Guzman M, Burnette JM III, Collin M, Lopez-Lopez B, Wessler SR, Van Norman JM, Nelson DC, Rasmussen CG. 2021. A course-based undergraduate research experience in CRISPR-Cas9 experimental design to support reverse genetic studies in Arabidopsis thaliana. J Microbiol Biol Educ 22:e00155–21. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00155-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Murren CJ, Wolyniak MJ, Rutter MT, Bisner AM, Callahan HS, Strand AE, Corwin LA. 2019. Undergraduates phenotyping Arabidopsis knockouts in a course-based undergraduate research experience: exploring plant fitness and vigor using quantitative phenotyping methods. J Microbiol Biol Educ 20:10. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Brownell SE, Hekmat-Scafe DS, Singla V, Chandler Seawell P, Conklin Imam JF, Eddy SL, Stearns T, Cyert MS, Hewlett J. 2015. A high-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience improves student conceptions of scientific thinking and ability to interpret data. LSE 14:ar21. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-05-0092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Duboue ER, Kowalko JE, Keene AC. 2022. Course‐based undergraduate research experiences (CURES) as a pathway to diversify science. Evol Dev 24:127–130. doi: 10.1111/ede.12410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Jordan TC, Burnett SH, Carson S, Caruso SM, Clase K, DeJong RJ, Dennehy JJ, Denver DR, Dunbar D, Elgin SCR, Findley AM, Gissendanner CR, Golebiewska UP, Guild N, Hartzog GA, Grillo WH, Hollowell GP, Hughes LE, Johnson A, King RA, Lewis LO, Li W, Rosenzweig F, Rubin MR, Saha MS, Sandoz J, Shaffer CD, Taylor B, Temple L, Vazquez E, Ware VC, Barker LP, Bradley KW, Jacobs-Sera D, Pope WH, Russell DA, Cresawn SG, Lopatto D, Bailey CP, Hatfull GF. 2014. A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for first-year undergraduate students. mBio 5:e01051-13. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01051-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Bhatt JM, Challa AK. 2018. First year course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) using the CRISPR/Cas9 genome engineering technology in Zebrafish. J Microbiol Biol Educ 19:19. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Cooper KM, Knope ML, Munstermann MJ, Brownell SE. 2020. Students who analyze their own data in a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) show gains in scientific identity and emotional ownership of research. J Microbiol Biol Educ 21:21.3.69. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i3.2157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Evans CJ, Olson JM, Mondal BC, Kandimalla P, Abbasi A, Abdusamad MM, Acosta O, Ainsworth JA, Akram HM, Albert RB, et al. 2021. A functional Genomics screen identifying blood cell development genes in Drosophila by undergraduates participating in a course-based research experience. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics 11:1–23. 10.1093/g3journal/jkaa028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Freeman EA, Theodosiou NA, Anderson WJ. 2020. From bench to board-side: academic teaching careers. Dev Biol 459:43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2019.10.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Shortlidge EE, Bangera G, Brownell SE. 2017. Each to their own CURE: faculty who teach course-based undergraduate research experiences report why you too should teach a CURE. J Microbiol Biol Educ 18:18. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Shortlidge EE, Bangera G, Brownell SE. 2016. Faculty perspectives on developing and teaching course-based undergraduate research experiences. BioScience 66:54–62. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv167 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22. Lopatto D, Alvarez C, Barnard D, Chandrasekaran C, Chung H-M, Du C, Eckdahl T, Goodman AL, Hauser C, Jones CJ, Kopp OR, Kuleck GA, McNeil G, Morris R, Myka JL, Nagengast A, Overvoorde PJ, Poet JL, Reed K, Regisford G, Revie D, Rosenwald A, Saville K, Shaw M, Skuse GR, Smith C, Smith M, Spratt M, Stamm J, Thompson JS, Wilson BA, Witkowski C, Youngblom J, Leung W, Shaffer CD, Buhler J, Mardis E, Elgin SCR. 2008. Genomics education partnership. Science 322:684–685. doi: 10.1126/science.1165351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, Arnold RJ, Ayuk MA, Balish MF, Beyer AR, Butela KA, Byrum CA, Chia CP, Chung H-M, Clase KL, Conant S, Coomans RJ, D’Elia T, Diaz J, Diaz A, Doty JA, Edgington NP, Edwards DC, Eivazova E, Emmons CB, Fast KM, Fisher EJ, Fleischacker CL, Frederick GD, Freise AC, Gainey MD, Gissendanner CR, Golebiewska UP, Guild NA, Hendrickson HL, Herren CD, Hopson-Fernandes MS, Hughes LE, Jacobs-Sera D, Johnson AA, Kirkpatrick BL, Klyczek KK, Koga AP, Kotturi H, LeBlanc-Straceski J, Lee-Soety JY, Leonard JE, Mastropaolo MD, Merkhofer EC, Michael SF, Mitchell JC, Mohan S, Monti DL, Noutsos C, Nsa IY, Peters NT, Plymale R, Pollenz RS, Porter ML, Rinehart CA, Rosas-Acosta G, Ross JF, Rubin MR, Scherer AE, Schroeder SC, Shaffer CD, Sprenkle AB, Sunnen CN, Swerdlow SJ, Tobiason D, Tolsma SS, Tsourkas PK, Ward RE, Ware VC, Warner MH, Washington JM, Westover KM, White SJ, Whitefleet-Smith JL, Williams DC, Wolyniak MJ, Zeilstra-Ryalls JH, Asai DJ, Hatfull GF, Sivanathan V. 2022. Instructional models for course-based research experience (CRE) teaching. CBE Life Sci Educ 21:ar8. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-03-0057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Caruso JP, Israel N, Rowland K, Lovelace MJ, Saunders MJ. 2016. Citizen science: the small world initiative improved lecture grades and California critical thinking skills test scores of nonscience major students at Florida atlantic university. J Microbiol Biol Educ 17:156–162. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Mast E, Bieser KL, Abraham-Villa M, Adams V, Akinlehin AJ, Aquino LZ, Austin JL, Austin AK, Beckham CN, Bengson EJ, Bieszk A, Bogard BL, Brennan RC, Brnot RM, Cirone NJ, Clark MR, Cooper BN, Cruz D, Daprizio KA, DeBoe J, Dencker MM, Donnelly LL, Driscoll L, DuBeau RJ, Durso SW, Ejub A, Elgosbi W, Estrada M, Evins K, Fox PD, France JM, Franco Hernandez MG, Garcia LA, Garl O, Gorsuch MR, Gorzeman-Mohr MA, Grothouse ME, Gubbels ME, Hakemiamjad R, Harvey CV, Hoeppner MA, Ivanov JL, Johnson VM, Johnson JL, Johnson A, Johnston K, Keller KR, Kennedy BT, Killian LR, Klumb M, Koehn OL, Koym AS, Kress KJ, Landis RE, Lewis KN, Lim E, Lopez IK IK, Lowe D, Luengo Carrete P, Lunaburg G, Mallinder SL, Marshall NA, Mathew J, Mcmanaway HS, Meegan EN, Meyst JD, Miller MJ, Minogue CK, Mohr AA, Moran CI, Okai AM, Okonmah C, Paramo M, Parker SL, Parmar NK, Paschal J, Patel D, Perkins EB, Perry MM, Perry Z, Pollock AA, Portalatin O, Proffitt KS, Queen JT, Quemeneur AC, Richardson AG, Rosenberger K, Rutherford AM, Santos-Perez IX, Sarti CY, Schouweiler LJ, Sessing LM, Silvestri CF, Smith OA, Smith MJ, Sumner JC, Sutton RR, Sweckard L, Talbott NB, Traxler PA, Truesdell J, Valenti AF, Verace L, Vijayakumar P, Wadley WL, Walter KE, Williams AR, Wilson TJ, Witbeck MA, Wobler TM, Wright LJ, Zuczkowska KA, Devergne O, Hamill DR, Shah HP, Siders J, Taylor EE, Vrailas-Mortimer AD, Kagey JD. 2022. Genetic mapping of Uba3^O.2.2, a pupal lethal mutation in Drosophila melanogaster. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Pope WH, Jacobs-Sera D, Russell DA, Peebles CL, Al-Atrache Z, Alcoser TA, Alexander LM, Alfano MB, Alford ST, Amy NE, et al. 2011. Expanding the diversity of Mycobacteriophages: Insights into genome architecture and evolution. PLoS One 6:e16329. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Leung W, Shaffer CD, Reed LK, Smith ST, Barshop W, Dirkes W, Dothager M, Lee P, Wong J, Xiong D, et al. 2015. Drosophila Muller F elements maintain a distinct set of Genomic properties over 40 million years of evolution. G3 (Bethesda) 5:719–740 5:719–740. 10.1534/g3.114.015966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Bieser K, Sanford JS, Saville K, Arreola KF, Ayres ZT, Basulto D, Benito S, Breen CJ, Brix JA, Brown N, Burton KK, Chadwick TM, Chen M, Chu K, Corbett BL, Dill Z, Faughender MA, Hickey AD, Julia JS, Kelty SS, Kobs BBK, Krason BA, Lam B, McCullough CL, McEwen BR. 2019. Genetic mapping of shn^E.3.2 in Drosophila melanogaster. Micropublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Bieser KL, Stamm J, Aldo AA, Bhaskara S, Claiborne M, Coronel Gómez JN, Dean R, Dowell A, Dowell E, Eissa M, Fawaz AA, Fouad-Meshriky MM, Godoy D, Gonzalez K, Hachem MK, Hammoud MF, Huffman A, Ingram H, Jackman AB, Karki B, Khalil N, Khalil H, Ha TK, Kharel A, Kobylarz I, Lomprey H, Lonnberg A, Mahbuba S, Massarani H, Minster M, Molina K, Molitor L, Murray T, Patel PM, Pechulis S, Raja A, Rastegari G, Reeves S, Sabu N, Salazar R, Schulert D, Senopole MD, Sportiello K, Torres C, Villalobos J, Wu J, Zeigler S, Kagey JD. 2018. The mapping of Drosophila Melanogaster mutant A.4.4. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Evans B. 2022. The I.3.2 developmental mutant has a single nucleotide deletion in the gene Centromere identifier. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Talley EM, Watts CT, Aboyer S, Adamson MG, Akoto HA, Altemus H, Avella PJ, Bailey R, Bell ER, Bell KL, Breneman K, Burkhart JS, Chanley LJ, Cook SS, DesLaurier MT, Dorsey TR, Doyle CJ, Egloff ME, Fasawe AS, Garcia KK, Graves NP, Gray TK, Gustafson EM, Hall MJ, Hayes JD, Holic LJ, Jarvis BA, Klos PS, Kritzmire S, Kuzovko L, Lainez E, McCoy S, Mierendorf JC, Neri NA, Neville CR, Osborn K, Parker K, Parks ME, Peck K, Pitt R, Platta ME, Powell B, Rodriguez K, Ruiz C, Schaefer MN, Shields AB, Smiley JB, Stauffer B, Straub D, Sweeney JL, Termine KM, Thomas B, Toth SD, Veile TR, Walker KS, Webster PN, Woodard BJ, Yoder QL, Young MK, Zeedyk ML, Ziegler LN, Bieser KL, Puthoff DP, Stamm J, Vrailas-Mortimer AD, Kagey JD, Merkle JA. 2021. Genetic mapping and phenotypic analysis of shot ^H.3.2 in Drosophila melanogaster. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Siders JL, Bieser KL, Hamill DR, Acosta EC, Alexander OK, Ali HI, Anderson MJ, Arrasmith HR, Azam M, Beeman NJ, Beydoun H, Bishop LJ, Blair MD, Bletch B, Bline HR, Brown JC, Burns KM, Calagua KC, Chafin L, Christy WA, Ciamacco C, Cizauskas H, Colwell CM, Courtright AR, Diaz Alavez L, Ecret RI, Edriss F, Ellerbrock TG, Ellis MM, Extine EM, Feldman E, Fickenworth LJ, Goeller CM, Grogg AS, Hernandez Y, Hershner A, Jauss MM, Jimenez Garcia L, Franks KE, Kazubski ET, Landis ER, Langub J, Lassek TN, Le TC, Lee JM, Levine DP, Lightfoot PJ, Love N, Maalhagh-Fard A, Maguire C, McGinnis BE, Mehta BV, Melendrez V, Mena ZE, Mendell S, Montiel-Garcia P, Murry AS, Newland RA, Nobles RM, Patel N, Patil Y, Pfister CL, Ramage V, Ray MR, Rodrigues J, Rodriquez VC, Romero Y, Scott AM, Shaba N, Sieg S, Silva K, Singh S, Spargo AJ, Spitnale SJ, Sweeden N, Tague L, Tavernini BM, Tran K, Tungol L, Vestal KA, Wetherbee A, Wright KM, Yeager AT, Zahid R, Kagey JD. 2021. Genetic mapping of a new Hippo allele, Hpo^N.1.2, in Drosophila melanogaster MicroPubl Biol 2021. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Thompson CF, Hodges KE, Mortimer NT, Vrailas-Mortimer AD, Sakaluk SK, Hauber ME. 2022. Avian eggshell coloration predicts shell-matrix protoporphyrin content. Can J Zool 100:77–81. doi: 10.1139/cjz-2021-0134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Stamm J, Joshi G, Anderson MA, Bussing K, Houchin C, Elinsky A, Flyte J, Husseini N, Jarosz D, Johnson C, Johnson A, Jones C, Kooner T, Myhre D, Rafaill T, Sayed S, Swan K, Toma J, Kagey J. 2019. Genetic mapping of Egfrl.3.1 in Drosophila melanogaster. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Cosenza A, Kagey JD. 2016. The mapping and characterization of Cruella (Cru) A novel allele of Capping protein α (CPα), identified from a conditional screen for negative regulators of cell growth and cell division. Adv Biosci Biotechnol 07:373–380. doi: 10.4236/abb.2016.710036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
36. Moore SL, Adamini FC, Coopes ES, Godoy D, Northington SJ, Stewart JM, Tillett RL, Bieser KL, Kagey JD. 2022. Patched and Costal-2 mutations lead to differences in tissue overgrowth autonomy. Fly (Austin) 16:176–189. doi: 10.1080/19336934.2022.2062991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Neufeld TP, Hariharan IK. 2002. Regulation of growth and cell proliferation during eye development, p 107–133. In Moses K (ed), Drosophila eye development. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-45398-7_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Kagey JD, Brown JA, Moberg KH. 2012. Regulation of yorkie activity in Drosophila imaginal discs by the hedgehog receptor gene patched. Mech Dev 129:339–349. doi: 10.1016/j.mod.2012.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. American Council on Education . 2023. Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Carnegie Classif Inst high Educ. Available from: https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu
40. United States Department of Education. united States Department of Education: lists of postsecondary minority institutions. 2023. Reference Materials, April. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst.html.
41. Ternovski J, Orr L, Kalla J, Aronow P. 2022. A note on increases in inattentive online survey-takers since 2020. JQD 2:1–35. doi: 10.51685/jqd.2022.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42. Davidson PL, Maccalla NMG, Afifi AA, Guerrero L, Nakazono TT, Zhong S, Wallace SP. 2017. A participatory approach to evaluating a national training and institutional change initiative: the BUILD longitudinal evaluation. BMC Proc 11:15. doi: 10.1186/s12919-017-0082-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Little TD, Chang R, Gorrall BK, Waggenspack L, Fukuda E, Allen PJ, Noam GG. 2020. The retrospective pretest–posttest design redux: on its validity as an alternative to traditional pretest–posttest measurement. Int J Behav Dev 44:175–183. doi: 10.1177/0165025419877973 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44. Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
45. Armstrong RA. 2014. When to use the bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 34:502–508. doi: 10.1111/opo.12131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Hake RR. 1998. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66:64–74. doi: 10.1119/1.18809 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47. Hwalek M, Solomon-Filer C, Wasserman D. 2022. Retrospective pretests: recent use in visitor studies research and ways to make them more informative. Visitor Studies 25:1–21. doi: 10.1080/10645578.2021.1977084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
48. Cook RK, Christensen SJ, Deal JA, Coburn RA, Deal ME, Gresens JM, Kaufman TC, Cook KR. 2012. The generation of chromosomal deletions to provide extensive coverage and subdivision of the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Genome Biol 13:1–14. doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-3-r21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, Jacobs-Sera D, Garlena RA, Russell DA, Sivanathan V, Asai DJ, Hatfull GF. 2022. Broadening access to STEM through the community college: investigating the role of course-based research experiences (Cres). CBE Life Sci Educ 21:ar38. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-08-0203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Croonquist P, Falkenberg V, Minkovsky N, Sawa A, Skerritt M, Sustacek MK, Diotti R, Aragon AD, Mans T, Sherr GL, Ward C, Hall-Woods M, Goodman AL, Reed LK, Lopatto D. 2023. The Genomics education partnership: First findings on Genomics research in community colleges. SPUR. doi: 10.18833/spur/6/3/1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Bowman NA, Holmes JM. 2018. Getting off to a good start? First-year undergraduate research experiences and student outcomes. High Educ 76:17–33. doi: 10.1007/s10734-017-0191-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
52. Neff LS, D’Souza MJ. 2019. Undergraduate research, data-science courses, and volunteer projects, inform and accelerate Wesley college's retention among First- and second- year students. Proc Natl Conf Undergrad Res 2019:1434. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Hewlett JA. 2018. Broadening participation in undergraduate research experiences (Ures): the expanding role of the community college. CBE Life Sci Educ 17:es9. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-11-0238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Shaffer CD, Alvarez CJ, Bednarski AE, Dunbar D, Goodman AL, Reinke C, Rosenwald AG, Wolyniak MJ, Bailey C, Barnard D, Bazinet C, Beach DL, Bedard JEJ, Bhalla S, Braverman J, Burg M, Chandrasekaran V, Chung H-M, Clase K, Dejong RJ, Diangelo JR, Du C, Eckdahl TT, Eisler H, Emerson JA, Frary A, Frohlich D, Gosser Y, Govind S, Haberman A, Hark AT, Hauser C, Hoogewerf A, Hoopes LLM, Howell CE, Johnson D, Jones CJ, Kadlec L, Kaehler M, Silver Key SC, Kleinschmit A, Kokan NP, Kopp O, Kuleck G, Leatherman J, Lopilato J, Mackinnon C, Martinez-Cruzado JC, McNeil G, Mel S, Mistry H, Nagengast A, Overvoorde P, Paetkau DW, Parrish S, Peterson CN, Preuss M, Reed LK, Revie D, Robic S, Roecklein-Canfield J, Rubin MR, Saville K, Schroeder S, Sharif K, Shaw M, Skuse G, Smith CD, Smith MA, Smith ST, Spana E, Spratt M, Sreenivasan A, Stamm J, Szauter P, Thompson JS, Wawersik M, Youngblom J, Zhou L, Mardis ER, Buhler J, Leung W, Lopatto D, Elgin SCR. 2014. A course-based research experience: how benefits change with increased investment in instructional time. CBE Life Sci Educ 13:111–130. doi: 10.1187/cbe-13-08-0152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Hernandez PR, Woodcock A, Estrada M, Schultz PW. 2018. Undergraduate research experiences broaden diversity in the scientific workforce. BioScience 68:204–211. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix163 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental figure legends. jmbe.00245-22-s0001.docx.

Legends of Fig. S1 to S4.

Click here for additional data file.^{(13.4KB, docx)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF1

Appendix 1. jmbe.00245-22-s0002.docx.

Supplemental information.

Click here for additional data file.^{(24.9KB, docx)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF2

Appendix 2. jmbe.00245-22-s0003.docx.

Fly-CURE course pre-survey (selected questions).

Click here for additional data file.^{(205.1KB, docx)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF3

Figure S1. jmbe.00245-22-s0004.tif.

Reported self-efficacy in research for student subgroups before and after completing the Fly-CURE.

Click here for additional data file.^{(3.2MB, tif)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF4

Figure S2. jmbe.00245-22-s0005.tif.

Reported sense of belonging in research for student subgroups before and after completing the Fly-CURE.

Click here for additional data file.^{(3MB, tif)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF5

Figure S3. jmbe.00245-22-s0006.tif.

Reported intent to seek additional research experiences for student subgroups before and after completing the Fly-CURE.

Click here for additional data file.^{(5.2MB, tif)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF6

Figure S4. jmbe.00245-22-s0007.tif.

Reported intent to seek additional research experiences in students with and without research experience prior to the Fly-CURE.

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.6MB, tif)}

DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.00245-22.SuF7

[B1] 1. Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, Betancur L, Bobrownicki A, Cresawn SG, Garlena RA, Jacobs-Sera D, Kaufmann N, Pope WH, Russell DA, et al. 2017. An inclusive research education Community (iREC): Impact of the SEA-PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:13531–13536. 10.1073/pnas.1718188115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B2] 2. Olson JM, Evans CJ, Ngo KT, Kim HJ, Nguyen JD, Gurley KGH, Ta T, Patel V, Han L, Truong-N KT, et al. 2019. Expression-based cell lineage analysis in Drosophila through a course-based research experience for early undergraduates. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics 9:3791–3800. 10.1534/g3.119.400541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B3] 3. Rodenbusch SE, Hernandez PR, Simmons SL, Dolan EL. 2016. Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE Life Sci Educ 15:ar20. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B4] 4. Woodin T, Carter VC, Fletcher L. 2010. Vision and change in biology undergraduate education, a call for action—initial responses. CBE Life Sci Educ 9:71–73. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-03-0044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B5] 5. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education » about V&C: a call to action (2011). Available from: https://visionandchange.org/about-vc-a-call-to-action-2011. Retrieved 29 Nov 2022.

[B6] 6. Bangera G, Brownell SE. 2014. Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE Life Sci Educ 13:602–606. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B7] 7. Shaffer CD, Alvarez C, Bailey C, Barnard D, Bhalla S, Chandrasekaran C, Chandrasekaran V, Chung H-M, Dorer DR, Du C, Eckdahl TT, Poet JL, Frohlich D, Goodman AL, Gosser Y, Hauser C, Hoopes LLM, Johnson D, Jones CJ, Kaehler M, Kokan N, Kopp OR, Kuleck GA, McNeil G, Moss R, Myka JL, Nagengast A, Morris R, Overvoorde PJ, Shoop E, Parrish S, Reed K, Regisford EG, Revie D, Rosenwald AG, Saville K, Schroeder S, Shaw M, Skuse G, Smith C, Smith M, Spana EP, Spratt M, Stamm J, Thompson JS, Wawersik M, Wilson BA, Youngblom J, Leung W, Buhler J, Mardis ER, Lopatto D, Elgin SCR. 2010. The genomics education partnership: successful integration of research into laboratory classes at a diverse group of undergraduate institutions. CBE Life Sci Educ 9:55–69. doi: 10.1187/09-11-0087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B8] 8. Elgin SCR, Hauser C, Holzen TM, Jones C, Kleinschmit A, Leatherman J, Genomics Education Partnership . 2017. The GEP: crowd-sourcing big data analysis with undergraduates. Trends Genet 33:81–85. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2016.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B9] 9. Tootle T, Hoffmann D, Allen A, Spracklen A, Groen C, Kelpsch D. 2019. Research and teaching: mini-course-based undergraduate research experience: impact on student understanding of STEM research and interest in STEM programs. J Coll Sci Teach 048. doi: 10.2505/4/jcst19_048_06_44 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B10] 10. Delventhal R, Steinhauer J. 2020. A course-based undergraduate research experience examining neurodegeneration in Drosophila melanogaster teaches students to think, communicate, and perform like scientists. PLoS One 15:e0230912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B11] 11. Mills A, Jaganatha V, Cortez A, Guzman M, Burnette JM III, Collin M, Lopez-Lopez B, Wessler SR, Van Norman JM, Nelson DC, Rasmussen CG. 2021. A course-based undergraduate research experience in CRISPR-Cas9 experimental design to support reverse genetic studies in Arabidopsis thaliana. J Microbiol Biol Educ 22:e00155–21. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00155-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B12] 12. Murren CJ, Wolyniak MJ, Rutter MT, Bisner AM, Callahan HS, Strand AE, Corwin LA. 2019. Undergraduates phenotyping Arabidopsis knockouts in a course-based undergraduate research experience: exploring plant fitness and vigor using quantitative phenotyping methods. J Microbiol Biol Educ 20:10. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B13] 13. Brownell SE, Hekmat-Scafe DS, Singla V, Chandler Seawell P, Conklin Imam JF, Eddy SL, Stearns T, Cyert MS, Hewlett J. 2015. A high-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience improves student conceptions of scientific thinking and ability to interpret data. LSE 14:ar21. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-05-0092 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B14] 14. Duboue ER, Kowalko JE, Keene AC. 2022. Course‐based undergraduate research experiences (CURES) as a pathway to diversify science. Evol Dev 24:127–130. doi: 10.1111/ede.12410 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B15] 15. Jordan TC, Burnett SH, Carson S, Caruso SM, Clase K, DeJong RJ, Dennehy JJ, Denver DR, Dunbar D, Elgin SCR, Findley AM, Gissendanner CR, Golebiewska UP, Guild N, Hartzog GA, Grillo WH, Hollowell GP, Hughes LE, Johnson A, King RA, Lewis LO, Li W, Rosenzweig F, Rubin MR, Saha MS, Sandoz J, Shaffer CD, Taylor B, Temple L, Vazquez E, Ware VC, Barker LP, Bradley KW, Jacobs-Sera D, Pope WH, Russell DA, Cresawn SG, Lopatto D, Bailey CP, Hatfull GF. 2014. A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for first-year undergraduate students. mBio 5:e01051-13. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01051-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B16] 16. Bhatt JM, Challa AK. 2018. First year course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) using the CRISPR/Cas9 genome engineering technology in Zebrafish. J Microbiol Biol Educ 19:19. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B17] 17. Cooper KM, Knope ML, Munstermann MJ, Brownell SE. 2020. Students who analyze their own data in a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) show gains in scientific identity and emotional ownership of research. J Microbiol Biol Educ 21:21.3.69. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i3.2157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B18] 18. Evans CJ, Olson JM, Mondal BC, Kandimalla P, Abbasi A, Abdusamad MM, Acosta O, Ainsworth JA, Akram HM, Albert RB, et al. 2021. A functional Genomics screen identifying blood cell development genes in Drosophila by undergraduates participating in a course-based research experience. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics 11:1–23. 10.1093/g3journal/jkaa028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B19] 19. Freeman EA, Theodosiou NA, Anderson WJ. 2020. From bench to board-side: academic teaching careers. Dev Biol 459:43–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2019.10.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B20] 20. Shortlidge EE, Bangera G, Brownell SE. 2017. Each to their own CURE: faculty who teach course-based undergraduate research experiences report why you too should teach a CURE. J Microbiol Biol Educ 18:18. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v18i2.1260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B21] 21. Shortlidge EE, Bangera G, Brownell SE. 2016. Faculty perspectives on developing and teaching course-based undergraduate research experiences. BioScience 66:54–62. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv167 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B22] 22. Lopatto D, Alvarez C, Barnard D, Chandrasekaran C, Chung H-M, Du C, Eckdahl T, Goodman AL, Hauser C, Jones CJ, Kopp OR, Kuleck GA, McNeil G, Morris R, Myka JL, Nagengast A, Overvoorde PJ, Poet JL, Reed K, Regisford G, Revie D, Rosenwald A, Saville K, Shaw M, Skuse GR, Smith C, Smith M, Spratt M, Stamm J, Thompson JS, Wilson BA, Witkowski C, Youngblom J, Leung W, Shaffer CD, Buhler J, Mardis E, Elgin SCR. 2008. Genomics education partnership. Science 322:684–685. doi: 10.1126/science.1165351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B23] 23. Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, Arnold RJ, Ayuk MA, Balish MF, Beyer AR, Butela KA, Byrum CA, Chia CP, Chung H-M, Clase KL, Conant S, Coomans RJ, D’Elia T, Diaz J, Diaz A, Doty JA, Edgington NP, Edwards DC, Eivazova E, Emmons CB, Fast KM, Fisher EJ, Fleischacker CL, Frederick GD, Freise AC, Gainey MD, Gissendanner CR, Golebiewska UP, Guild NA, Hendrickson HL, Herren CD, Hopson-Fernandes MS, Hughes LE, Jacobs-Sera D, Johnson AA, Kirkpatrick BL, Klyczek KK, Koga AP, Kotturi H, LeBlanc-Straceski J, Lee-Soety JY, Leonard JE, Mastropaolo MD, Merkhofer EC, Michael SF, Mitchell JC, Mohan S, Monti DL, Noutsos C, Nsa IY, Peters NT, Plymale R, Pollenz RS, Porter ML, Rinehart CA, Rosas-Acosta G, Ross JF, Rubin MR, Scherer AE, Schroeder SC, Shaffer CD, Sprenkle AB, Sunnen CN, Swerdlow SJ, Tobiason D, Tolsma SS, Tsourkas PK, Ward RE, Ware VC, Warner MH, Washington JM, Westover KM, White SJ, Whitefleet-Smith JL, Williams DC, Wolyniak MJ, Zeilstra-Ryalls JH, Asai DJ, Hatfull GF, Sivanathan V. 2022. Instructional models for course-based research experience (CRE) teaching. CBE Life Sci Educ 21:ar8. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-03-0057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B24] 24. Caruso JP, Israel N, Rowland K, Lovelace MJ, Saunders MJ. 2016. Citizen science: the small world initiative improved lecture grades and California critical thinking skills test scores of nonscience major students at Florida atlantic university. J Microbiol Biol Educ 17:156–162. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B25] 25. Mast E, Bieser KL, Abraham-Villa M, Adams V, Akinlehin AJ, Aquino LZ, Austin JL, Austin AK, Beckham CN, Bengson EJ, Bieszk A, Bogard BL, Brennan RC, Brnot RM, Cirone NJ, Clark MR, Cooper BN, Cruz D, Daprizio KA, DeBoe J, Dencker MM, Donnelly LL, Driscoll L, DuBeau RJ, Durso SW, Ejub A, Elgosbi W, Estrada M, Evins K, Fox PD, France JM, Franco Hernandez MG, Garcia LA, Garl O, Gorsuch MR, Gorzeman-Mohr MA, Grothouse ME, Gubbels ME, Hakemiamjad R, Harvey CV, Hoeppner MA, Ivanov JL, Johnson VM, Johnson JL, Johnson A, Johnston K, Keller KR, Kennedy BT, Killian LR, Klumb M, Koehn OL, Koym AS, Kress KJ, Landis RE, Lewis KN, Lim E, Lopez IK IK, Lowe D, Luengo Carrete P, Lunaburg G, Mallinder SL, Marshall NA, Mathew J, Mcmanaway HS, Meegan EN, Meyst JD, Miller MJ, Minogue CK, Mohr AA, Moran CI, Okai AM, Okonmah C, Paramo M, Parker SL, Parmar NK, Paschal J, Patel D, Perkins EB, Perry MM, Perry Z, Pollock AA, Portalatin O, Proffitt KS, Queen JT, Quemeneur AC, Richardson AG, Rosenberger K, Rutherford AM, Santos-Perez IX, Sarti CY, Schouweiler LJ, Sessing LM, Silvestri CF, Smith OA, Smith MJ, Sumner JC, Sutton RR, Sweckard L, Talbott NB, Traxler PA, Truesdell J, Valenti AF, Verace L, Vijayakumar P, Wadley WL, Walter KE, Williams AR, Wilson TJ, Witbeck MA, Wobler TM, Wright LJ, Zuczkowska KA, Devergne O, Hamill DR, Shah HP, Siders J, Taylor EE, Vrailas-Mortimer AD, Kagey JD. 2022. Genetic mapping of Uba3^O.2.2, a pupal lethal mutation in Drosophila melanogaster. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B26] 26. Pope WH, Jacobs-Sera D, Russell DA, Peebles CL, Al-Atrache Z, Alcoser TA, Alexander LM, Alfano MB, Alford ST, Amy NE, et al. 2011. Expanding the diversity of Mycobacteriophages: Insights into genome architecture and evolution. PLoS One 6:e16329. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B27] 27. Leung W, Shaffer CD, Reed LK, Smith ST, Barshop W, Dirkes W, Dothager M, Lee P, Wong J, Xiong D, et al. 2015. Drosophila Muller F elements maintain a distinct set of Genomic properties over 40 million years of evolution. G3 (Bethesda) 5:719–740 5:719–740. 10.1534/g3.114.015966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B28] 28. Bieser K, Sanford JS, Saville K, Arreola KF, Ayres ZT, Basulto D, Benito S, Breen CJ, Brix JA, Brown N, Burton KK, Chadwick TM, Chen M, Chu K, Corbett BL, Dill Z, Faughender MA, Hickey AD, Julia JS, Kelty SS, Kobs BBK, Krason BA, Lam B, McCullough CL, McEwen BR. 2019. Genetic mapping of shn^E.3.2 in Drosophila melanogaster. Micropublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B29] 29. Bieser KL, Stamm J, Aldo AA, Bhaskara S, Claiborne M, Coronel Gómez JN, Dean R, Dowell A, Dowell E, Eissa M, Fawaz AA, Fouad-Meshriky MM, Godoy D, Gonzalez K, Hachem MK, Hammoud MF, Huffman A, Ingram H, Jackman AB, Karki B, Khalil N, Khalil H, Ha TK, Kharel A, Kobylarz I, Lomprey H, Lonnberg A, Mahbuba S, Massarani H, Minster M, Molina K, Molitor L, Murray T, Patel PM, Pechulis S, Raja A, Rastegari G, Reeves S, Sabu N, Salazar R, Schulert D, Senopole MD, Sportiello K, Torres C, Villalobos J, Wu J, Zeigler S, Kagey JD. 2018. The mapping of Drosophila Melanogaster mutant A.4.4. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B30] 30. Evans B. 2022. The I.3.2 developmental mutant has a single nucleotide deletion in the gene Centromere identifier. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B31] 31. Talley EM, Watts CT, Aboyer S, Adamson MG, Akoto HA, Altemus H, Avella PJ, Bailey R, Bell ER, Bell KL, Breneman K, Burkhart JS, Chanley LJ, Cook SS, DesLaurier MT, Dorsey TR, Doyle CJ, Egloff ME, Fasawe AS, Garcia KK, Graves NP, Gray TK, Gustafson EM, Hall MJ, Hayes JD, Holic LJ, Jarvis BA, Klos PS, Kritzmire S, Kuzovko L, Lainez E, McCoy S, Mierendorf JC, Neri NA, Neville CR, Osborn K, Parker K, Parks ME, Peck K, Pitt R, Platta ME, Powell B, Rodriguez K, Ruiz C, Schaefer MN, Shields AB, Smiley JB, Stauffer B, Straub D, Sweeney JL, Termine KM, Thomas B, Toth SD, Veile TR, Walker KS, Webster PN, Woodard BJ, Yoder QL, Young MK, Zeedyk ML, Ziegler LN, Bieser KL, Puthoff DP, Stamm J, Vrailas-Mortimer AD, Kagey JD, Merkle JA. 2021. Genetic mapping and phenotypic analysis of shot ^H.3.2 in Drosophila melanogaster. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B32] 32. Siders JL, Bieser KL, Hamill DR, Acosta EC, Alexander OK, Ali HI, Anderson MJ, Arrasmith HR, Azam M, Beeman NJ, Beydoun H, Bishop LJ, Blair MD, Bletch B, Bline HR, Brown JC, Burns KM, Calagua KC, Chafin L, Christy WA, Ciamacco C, Cizauskas H, Colwell CM, Courtright AR, Diaz Alavez L, Ecret RI, Edriss F, Ellerbrock TG, Ellis MM, Extine EM, Feldman E, Fickenworth LJ, Goeller CM, Grogg AS, Hernandez Y, Hershner A, Jauss MM, Jimenez Garcia L, Franks KE, Kazubski ET, Landis ER, Langub J, Lassek TN, Le TC, Lee JM, Levine DP, Lightfoot PJ, Love N, Maalhagh-Fard A, Maguire C, McGinnis BE, Mehta BV, Melendrez V, Mena ZE, Mendell S, Montiel-Garcia P, Murry AS, Newland RA, Nobles RM, Patel N, Patil Y, Pfister CL, Ramage V, Ray MR, Rodrigues J, Rodriquez VC, Romero Y, Scott AM, Shaba N, Sieg S, Silva K, Singh S, Spargo AJ, Spitnale SJ, Sweeden N, Tague L, Tavernini BM, Tran K, Tungol L, Vestal KA, Wetherbee A, Wright KM, Yeager AT, Zahid R, Kagey JD. 2021. Genetic mapping of a new Hippo allele, Hpo^N.1.2, in Drosophila melanogaster MicroPubl Biol 2021. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B33] 33. Thompson CF, Hodges KE, Mortimer NT, Vrailas-Mortimer AD, Sakaluk SK, Hauber ME. 2022. Avian eggshell coloration predicts shell-matrix protoporphyrin content. Can J Zool 100:77–81. doi: 10.1139/cjz-2021-0134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B34] 34. Stamm J, Joshi G, Anderson MA, Bussing K, Houchin C, Elinsky A, Flyte J, Husseini N, Jarosz D, Johnson C, Johnson A, Jones C, Kooner T, Myhre D, Rafaill T, Sayed S, Swan K, Toma J, Kagey J. 2019. Genetic mapping of Egfrl.3.1 in Drosophila melanogaster. MicroPublication Biol. doi: 10.17912/micropub.biology.000098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B35] 35. Cosenza A, Kagey JD. 2016. The mapping and characterization of Cruella (Cru) A novel allele of Capping protein α (CPα), identified from a conditional screen for negative regulators of cell growth and cell division. Adv Biosci Biotechnol 07:373–380. doi: 10.4236/abb.2016.710036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B36] 36. Moore SL, Adamini FC, Coopes ES, Godoy D, Northington SJ, Stewart JM, Tillett RL, Bieser KL, Kagey JD. 2022. Patched and Costal-2 mutations lead to differences in tissue overgrowth autonomy. Fly (Austin) 16:176–189. doi: 10.1080/19336934.2022.2062991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B37] 37. Neufeld TP, Hariharan IK. 2002. Regulation of growth and cell proliferation during eye development, p 107–133. In Moses K (ed), Drosophila eye development. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-45398-7_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B38] 38. Kagey JD, Brown JA, Moberg KH. 2012. Regulation of yorkie activity in Drosophila imaginal discs by the hedgehog receptor gene patched. Mech Dev 129:339–349. doi: 10.1016/j.mod.2012.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B39] 39. American Council on Education . 2023. Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Carnegie Classif Inst high Educ. Available from: https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu

[B40] 40. United States Department of Education. united States Department of Education: lists of postsecondary minority institutions. 2023. Reference Materials, April. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst.html.

[B41] 41. Ternovski J, Orr L, Kalla J, Aronow P. 2022. A note on increases in inattentive online survey-takers since 2020. JQD 2:1–35. doi: 10.51685/jqd.2022.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B42] 42. Davidson PL, Maccalla NMG, Afifi AA, Guerrero L, Nakazono TT, Zhong S, Wallace SP. 2017. A participatory approach to evaluating a national training and institutional change initiative: the BUILD longitudinal evaluation. BMC Proc 11:15. doi: 10.1186/s12919-017-0082-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B43] 43. Little TD, Chang R, Gorrall BK, Waggenspack L, Fukuda E, Allen PJ, Noam GG. 2020. The retrospective pretest–posttest design redux: on its validity as an alternative to traditional pretest–posttest measurement. Int J Behav Dev 44:175–183. doi: 10.1177/0165025419877973 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B44] 44. Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B45] 45. Armstrong RA. 2014. When to use the bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 34:502–508. doi: 10.1111/opo.12131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B46] 46. Hake RR. 1998. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66:64–74. doi: 10.1119/1.18809 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B47] 47. Hwalek M, Solomon-Filer C, Wasserman D. 2022. Retrospective pretests: recent use in visitor studies research and ways to make them more informative. Visitor Studies 25:1–21. doi: 10.1080/10645578.2021.1977084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B48] 48. Cook RK, Christensen SJ, Deal JA, Coburn RA, Deal ME, Gresens JM, Kaufman TC, Cook KR. 2012. The generation of chromosomal deletions to provide extensive coverage and subdivision of the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Genome Biol 13:1–14. doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-3-r21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B49] 49. Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, Jacobs-Sera D, Garlena RA, Russell DA, Sivanathan V, Asai DJ, Hatfull GF. 2022. Broadening access to STEM through the community college: investigating the role of course-based research experiences (Cres). CBE Life Sci Educ 21:ar38. doi: 10.1187/cbe.21-08-0203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B50] 50. Croonquist P, Falkenberg V, Minkovsky N, Sawa A, Skerritt M, Sustacek MK, Diotti R, Aragon AD, Mans T, Sherr GL, Ward C, Hall-Woods M, Goodman AL, Reed LK, Lopatto D. 2023. The Genomics education partnership: First findings on Genomics research in community colleges. SPUR. doi: 10.18833/spur/6/3/1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B51] 51. Bowman NA, Holmes JM. 2018. Getting off to a good start? First-year undergraduate research experiences and student outcomes. High Educ 76:17–33. doi: 10.1007/s10734-017-0191-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B52] 52. Neff LS, D’Souza MJ. 2019. Undergraduate research, data-science courses, and volunteer projects, inform and accelerate Wesley college's retention among First- and second- year students. Proc Natl Conf Undergrad Res 2019:1434. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B53] 53. Hewlett JA. 2018. Broadening participation in undergraduate research experiences (Ures): the expanding role of the community college. CBE Life Sci Educ 17:es9. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-11-0238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B54] 54. Shaffer CD, Alvarez CJ, Bednarski AE, Dunbar D, Goodman AL, Reinke C, Rosenwald AG, Wolyniak MJ, Bailey C, Barnard D, Bazinet C, Beach DL, Bedard JEJ, Bhalla S, Braverman J, Burg M, Chandrasekaran V, Chung H-M, Clase K, Dejong RJ, Diangelo JR, Du C, Eckdahl TT, Eisler H, Emerson JA, Frary A, Frohlich D, Gosser Y, Govind S, Haberman A, Hark AT, Hauser C, Hoogewerf A, Hoopes LLM, Howell CE, Johnson D, Jones CJ, Kadlec L, Kaehler M, Silver Key SC, Kleinschmit A, Kokan NP, Kopp O, Kuleck G, Leatherman J, Lopilato J, Mackinnon C, Martinez-Cruzado JC, McNeil G, Mel S, Mistry H, Nagengast A, Overvoorde P, Paetkau DW, Parrish S, Peterson CN, Preuss M, Reed LK, Revie D, Robic S, Roecklein-Canfield J, Rubin MR, Saville K, Schroeder S, Sharif K, Shaw M, Skuse G, Smith CD, Smith MA, Smith ST, Spana E, Spratt M, Sreenivasan A, Stamm J, Szauter P, Thompson JS, Wawersik M, Youngblom J, Zhou L, Mardis ER, Buhler J, Leung W, Lopatto D, Elgin SCR. 2014. A course-based research experience: how benefits change with increased investment in instructional time. CBE Life Sci Educ 13:111–130. doi: 10.1187/cbe-13-08-0152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B55] 55. Hernandez PR, Woodcock A, Estrada M, Schultz PW. 2018. Undergraduate research experiences broaden diversity in the scientific workforce. BioScience 68:204–211. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix163 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Fly-CURE, a multi-institutional CURE using Drosophila, increases students' confidence, sense of belonging, and persistence in research

Julie A Merkle

Olivier Devergne

Seth M Kelly

Paula A Croonquist

Cory J Evans

Melanie A Hwalek

Victoria L Straub

Danielle R Hamill

Alexandra Peister

David P Puthoff

Ken J Saville

Jamie L Siders

Zully J Villanueva Gonzalez

Jacqueline K Wittke-Thompson

Kayla L Bieser

Joyce Stamm

Alysia D Vrailas-Mortimer

Jacob D Kagey

Roles

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

METHODS

Fly-CURE consortium: institutions, faculty, and student participants

Fig 1.

Measure of research experience and dosage

Fly-CURE outcome measures

Research self-efficacy

Sense of belonging in science

Intent to pursue additional research opportunities

Statistical analyses

Limitations of study design and analysis

Organization of the Fly-CURE

RESULTS

The Fly-CURE focuses on the genomic mapping and phenotypic characterization of EMS-induced mutant lines involved in Drosophila eye development

Fly-CURE is a modular research experience that can be implemented in a variety of laboratory classes

The Fly-CURE provides research experiences at a range of institutions and for a broad spectrum of student participants

Fig 2.

Impact of the Fly-CURE on student self-efficacy in research

Fig 3.

Impact of the Fly-CURE on student sense of belonging in the scientific research community

Fig 4.

Impact of the Fly-CURE on student intention to pursue additional research opportunities

Fig 5.

Impact of the Fly-CURE on students with and without previous research experiences

Fig 6.

DISCUSSION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Contributor Information

FUNDING

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

REFERENCES

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases