Abstract
ABSTRACT
The positive impact of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) on student outcomes is widely acknowledged. Yet, barriers to initial and then continued implementation of CUREs limit their use. In this Perspective, we expand on previous research on why faculty do (or do not) implement CUREs by exploring patterns and reasons for CURE implementation and continuation in the context of a network CURE that provided intensive faculty professional development, and curricular and financial resources. The compatibility of the CURE to existing curricula, the complexity of the CURE from the perspective of both instructors and students, and changes in faculty positions or the courses they were teaching were the biggest barriers to both initial and continued implementation. In contrast, in-person, hands-on faculty professional development, and flexibility in the duration of implementation were the biggest facilitators of implementation and continuation. We propose the following recommendations to encourage even broader implementation and continuation of CUREs: (i) in-person hands-on faculty development workshops, (ii) implementation flexibility, allowing for either full-semester or half-semester implementations or modular activities with core modules and then a selection of add-ons, (iii) maximize learning-teaching innovation compatibility with already existing courses and curriculum by focusing on foundational skills and knowledge, (iv) implement CUREs in core courses with multiple sections and instructors to increase implementation success and foster systemic change, and (v) give faculty resources and support to lead students in a CURE for which the faculty are not experts, and the outcome is unknown.