Implementation and Assessment of a Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) in General Chemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are growing in popularity in the chemistry community to replace traditional laboratory courses. This approach creates a research experience for a larger number of students than traditional research mentorship experiences offered at universities. CUREs can help students take ownership of projects, learn to design and troubleshoot experimental setups, problem-solve experiments that don’t have a “known answer”, and gain confidence in the laboratory. To assess the effectiveness of a general chemistry laboratory-based CURE course with DePaul students, the Experimental Design Ability Test (EDAT) and the Meaningful Learning in the Laboratory Instrument (MLLI) survey were given to the traditional General Chemistry Laboratory students and to the CURE laboratory students during the same quarter. The EDAT evaluates students’ ability to develop a hypothetical investigative design to test a claim. The MLII measures students’ expectations and thoughts about the laboratory before and after the experiments take place and whether they are integrating these thoughts with what they are doing hands-on in the laboratory course. These surveys were given at the start of the quarter and at the end of the quarter. Results of this study showed that students in the CURE course had higher experimental learning in the affective and cognitive domains compared to the non-CURE students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".