Over the last several years, nationally disseminated course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have emerged as an alternative to developing a novel CURE from scratch, but objective assessment of these multi-institution (network) CUREs across institutions is challenging due to differences in student populations, instructors, and fidelity of implementation. The time, money, and skills required to develop and validate a CURE-specific assessment instrument can be prohibitive. Here, we describe a co-design process for assessing a network CURE [the Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance in the Environment (PARE)] that did not require support through external funding, was a relatively low time commitment for participating instructors, and resulted in a validated instrument that is usable across diverse PARE network institution types and implementation styles. Data collection efforts have involved over two dozen unique institutions, 42 course offerings, and over 1,300 pre-/post-matched assessment record data points. We demonstrated significant student learning gains but with small effect size in both content and science process skills after participation in the two laboratory sessions associated with the core PARE module. These results show promise for the efficacy of short-duration CUREs, an educational research area ripe for further investigation, and may support efforts to lower barriers for instructor adoption by leveraging a CURE network for developing and validating assessment tools.
Keywords: antimicrobial-resistant bacteria; assessment development and validation; course-based research experience (CRE); course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE); learning gains; multi-institution short-duration modular network CURE; prevalence of antibiotic resistance in the environment (PARE); science education; science process skills.