Does exposure to research experiences have different learning outcomes than prior exposure to lab techniques in non-research settings?

Abstract

A large body of literature has established the benefits of undergraduate research experiences via the traditional apprenticeship model. More recently, several studies have shown that many of these benefits can be recapitulated in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) that are more scalable and easier for students to participate in, compared to the apprenticeship-based research experiences. Many Biology curricula also incorporate more traditional laboratory courses, where students learn to use common laboratory techniques through guided exercises with known outcomes. Indeed, many programs across the nation provide such programs or courses for students early in their careers, with a view toward increasing student interest and engagement in Biology. While there is general consensus that all lab experiences have some benefits for students, very few studies have examined whether either research experiences or learning biological techniques in more traditional lab courses directly impacts student performance in lecture courses. Here, we show that prior familiarity with laboratory techniques does not improve student performance in a lecture course, even if these techniques are directly related to content being taught in the course. However, having prior research experience improves performance in the course, irrespective of whether the research experience included the use of course-related laboratory techniques.

Keywords: curriculum assessment; curriculum design development and implementation; curriculum development; integration of research into undergraduate teaching; laboratory exercises; learning and curriculum design.