TABLE 1.

Comparison of course design features between the traditional lab course and CURE

	Traditional lab	CURE
Scientific practices	Students were tasked with developing hypotheses; designing experiments using protocols in immunology, including flow cytometry, ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), cytolysis, and plaque assays; and analyzing data and writing lab reports.	Students were tasked with developing hypotheses; designing experiments using protocols in immunology, including flow cytometry, ELISA, cytolysis, and plaque assays; and analyzing data and writing lab reports.
Collaboration	Students worked in groups of four on all experiments and lab reports.	Students worked in groups of four on all experiments and lab reports.
Iteration	Students compared the data generated by their own groups to data generated by other groups. If an individual group had widely disparate results compared with other groups, students would need to include potential reasoning behind why their results did not match other groups’ results.	Students compared the data generated by their own groups to data generated by other groups. If an individual group had widely disparate results compared with other groups, students would need to include potential reasoning behind why their results did not match other groups’ results.
Broadly relevant novel discoveries	Students characterized the immune system of wild-type mice, so there were no broadly relevant novel results.	Students characterized the immune system of a mutant strain of mice, which have never been characterized before, and therefore a “broadly relevant novel discovery.”