View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

CURE Lecture Too: MCAT, BCI, and Tracking Data Show Students Who Discussed Research Data in Lecture Learned More than Peers Using Traditional Textbooks

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: CURE Lecture Too: MCAT, BCI, and Tracking Data Show Students Who Discussed Research Data in Lecture Learned More than Peers Using Traditional Textbooks
Language: English
Authors: Douglas B. Luckie (ORCID 0000-0002-4428-2965), Maria A. Green, Davin W. Hami, Hannah L. Zawisa
Source: Advances in Physiology Education. 2026 50(1):254-260.
Availability: American Physiological Society. 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3991. Tel: 301-634-7164; Fax: 301-634-7241; e-mail: webmaster@the-aps.org; Web site: https://www.physiology.org/journal/advances
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Undergraduate Students, Student Research, Lecture Method, Discussion (Teaching Technique), Textbooks, Conventional Instruction, Instructional Effectiveness, Biology, Scientific Research, Introductory Courses, Physiology, Majors (Students), College Science, Science Instruction, Experimental Teaching, Science Achievement
Geographic Terms: Michigan
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Medical College Admission Test
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00002.2025
ISSN: 1043-4046
1522-1229
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of an intervention, a "CURE lecture" approach, that introduced course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) strategies into the lecture setting. Rather than learning biological explanations from a traditional textbook, instead students studied primary literature curated in a reformed research-focused textbook and had discussions of data and experimental design. In control cohorts, reformed active and cooperative pedagogies were used in lecture to engage students in learning traditional textbook content. In experimental cohorts, "lecture" format was replaced with active and cooperative "journal club" discussions of published experiments. Prior studies examined use of research-focused "Integrating Concepts in Biology" ("ICB") textbook readings in two sequential introductory biology courses. In this study, assessments focused on student learning gains after a single semester. Klymkowsky's Biology Concept Inventory with known misconceptions as distractors and Loznak's Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) instrument used for over a decade prior joined longitudinal tracking to evaluate impact of intervention. The ICB student cohort had higher scores (46.3% vs. 34.3%) than the control cohort on the concept inventory and on the MCAT questions performed comparably in the range achieved by peer control students since the year 2000. Longitudinal tracking revealed that ICB students immediately outperformed peers in their next biology course the following semester. The literature suggested that a two-semester ICB experience helped students better succeed, and these findings support that even a shorter exposure, of just a single semester, to the CURE lecture strategy is impactful to students.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1497638
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGEvmN8k2omr2FnJ46E-YIzAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBfKE8ggqsQZ1KZ0zQIBEICBmhp2OdOCWHAZa37j9jW6aHaMWZmUxUsoD-cwM4SwBCk9wm5BNZrEMGgkBLFLhpFahBqGhJpD9pjfFK2JM5o--2yfIz4vx3gc3-_xo2UaBfh3BY7Mj8QkjG__b-GTClA6YV9RIg11nZZrIbkkKTNq5aEAk701vnaQv4IqlERVRU5MvBqrgJAdOmH6TrAS9BScG9MPZynZ4HS4x54=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0192623330;apu01mar.26;2026Apr01.05:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0192623330-1">CURE lecture too: MCAT, BCI, and tracking data show students who discussed research data in lecture learned more than peers using traditional textbooks </title> <sbt id="AN0192623330-2">INTRODUCTION</sbt> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of an intervention, a "CURE lecture" approach, that introduced course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) strategies into the lecture setting. Rather than learning biological explanations from a traditional textbook, instead students studied primary literature curated in a reformed research-focused textbook and had discussions of data and experimental design. In control cohorts, reformed active and cooperative pedagogies were used in lecture to engage students in learning traditional textbook content. In experimental cohorts, "lecture" format was replaced with active and cooperative "journal club" discussions of published experiments. Prior studies examined use of research-focused Integrating Concepts in Biology (ICB) textbook readings in two sequential introductory biology courses. In this study, assessments focused on student learning gains after a single semester. Klymkowsky's Biology Concept Inventory with known misconceptions as distractors and Loznak's Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) instrument used for over a decade prior joined longitudinal tracking to evaluate impact of intervention. The ICB student cohort had higher scores (46.3% vs. 34.3%) than the control cohort on the concept inventory and on the MCAT questions performed comparably in the range achieved by peer control students since the year 2000. Longitudinal tracking revealed that ICB students immediately outperformed peers in their next biology course the following semester. The literature suggested that a two-semester ICB experience helped students better succeed, and these findings support that even a shorter exposure, of just a single semester, to the CURE lecture strategy is impactful to students. NEW & NOTEWORTHY A "CURE lecture" approach was used in physiology majors' first introductory biology course, where journal club strategies replaced lecture in class meetings. Rather than lectures on biological explanations from a traditional textbook, students constructed their knowledge via primary literature readings in a reformed textbook aided by discussions of data and experimental design. When assessed by a MCAT instrument, Biology Concept Inventory, and tracking student performance, the experimental student cohort outperformed the peer control cohort.</p> <p>In the last decade, a growing number of biology instructors have converted from using traditional confirmatory laboratory experiments to deploying course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) in their laboratory classes ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]). CUREs are student-centered inquiry investigations connected to areas of active research ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]). They provide authentic mentored research experiences, much like traditional undergraduate research (URE) with a faculty member but in a classroom setting. A number of studies have reported the positive impact of the CURE model and find that it shares many of the same benefits as traditional URE internships ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref4">8</reflink>]).CUREs also provide far greater accessibility to students than traditional UREs, where only "the few" gain access because of limited space and resources ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]). Far more students are provided access and get required credits satisfied simply by enrolling in a course. CUREs provide a more diverse population of students with the opportunity to become legitimate participants in scientific research ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]). Yet just a single CURE laboratory experience does not achieve all the hoped-for scientific research outcomes: including scientific "norms" like openness to experimental revision, normalizing experimental failure, and troubleshooting via collaboration ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>]). Thus, strategies of lengthening or broadening the CURE experience are being explored by scholars to help more students gain access and better obtain additional skills and success.A handful of groups are testing pedagogical approaches that regularly examine authentic data in the lecture setting, to help "CURE lecture" ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]). In this new model, lecture transformation parallels the past, when confirmatory cookbook laboratories became CUREs. In this case, confirmatory cookbook lectures become professional journal clubs. Participants closely examine research papers and discuss experimental design and data analysis, as is common in the culture of research ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]). CURE lectures, particularly when optimally connected to CURE laboratory experiences, may help a wider range of students benefit and have outcomes equal to or even exceeding that of a URE.The purpose of this research study was to look for evidence of the impact of a single-semester intervention, facilitated by the use of a reformed textbook, <emph>Integrating Concepts in Biology</emph> (ICB) ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]) and associated primary literature. To achieve a CURE lecture approach in an introductory biology course, readings in the ICB textbook and of original research papers replaced all traditional textbook readings used previously. The ICB textbook rigorously implements recommendations and practices as described in <emph>Vision and Change</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]). Whereas traditional textbooks often place content at their center and include scientific practice in the margins, the ICB textbook reverses that approach and at its center requires students to engage in science practice, examining experimental design and data ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]).We previously tested the ICB curriculum on a cohort (ICB 1.0) of students to see whether it could boost conceptual expertise and longitudinal performance ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref21">17</reflink>]). After the ICB 1.0 intervention, student learning data supported significant gains at year end, after use in two sequential introductory biology courses. This new project (ICB 2.0) examined the impact of just a single-semester "dose" of ICB curriculum. Student learning was examined with published instruments, the Biology Concept Inventory ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]) and a Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) instrument ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref23">22</reflink>]), to assess content knowledge, as well as longitudinal cohort analysis to follow student performance in their next biology course.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-3">MATERIALS AND METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192623330-4">Participants (IRB Statement)</hd> <p>This project occurred in Fall 2016 and Spring 2017. It was approved by the Michigan State University (MSU) Internal Review Board under exempt status (x16-948e). With the approval of the Institutional Review Board, data were collected from all students who completed the ICB course and control students from MSU. MSU registrar's office provided American College Testing (ACT) performance data; all students were enrolled at MSU, and participant consent was obtained.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-5">Course Pedagogy and Content</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192623330-6">Experimental "ICB 2.0" cohort.</hd> <p>What was unique to the ICB course was the content. Instead of being driven by a "march" through sections of a traditional "biology encyclopedia" textbook, the ICB textbook helped students explore published research on each topic. For example, a "Photosynthesis" chapter in the ICB textbook examined published experiments from accessible research papers that studied aspects of how plants capture light and fix carbon. Reformed active and cooperative pedagogies were then applied to that new content/context. As a result, class meetings in the CURE lecture setting were essentially journal clubs, aided by a textbook that carefully guided each student's initial inquiry into the published experiments with regular questions, e.g., "In Figure 2, why do you predict Dr. Rachel Page's data seem to plateau after 10 min, what might be happening?" The CURE lecture lessons included mini-lectures that introduced and engaged discussions, followed by regular use of active and cooperative "talk to your neighbor" and think-pair-share exercises. These were facilitated by use of clickers and random calling. Students had frequent short homework reading assignments in the textbook <emph>Integrating Concepts in Biology</emph> by Campbell, Heyer, and Paradise ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>]). For a typical lecture in the ICB 2.0 course, in a scaffolded progression/learning cycle fashion, as homework students first completed a short reading in the ICB textbook highlighting scientists' research and data figures. Then, in class, students participated in discussions with Socratic questioning, which examined the reading. Finally, for the next class meeting, students read and then discussed an associated research paper and its figures and explanations. Two changes incorporated into the ICB 2.0 curriculum were more in-class time devoted to students exploring original published papers and less outside-of-class time devoted by instructors to tracking student completion of homework readings in the online textbook. After the ICB 1.0 study, and after D.B.L.'s 2015–2016 sabbatical at Davidson College observing Drs. Campbell and Paradise teaching with the ICB textbook, effective pedagogies like random and cold calling were adopted.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-7">Control cohorts.</hd> <p>"Historical control" cohorts (MCAT data) were held in similar-sized sections of the same course using a traditional textbook during prior years. Between 2000 and 2006 instructors varied, but in the more recent years 2007–2013 (in Fig. 1) the instructor remained the same. Peer control cohorts (BCI data) were students enrolled in a similar-sized section of the same course held concurrently with the experimental course (in Fig. 2). Peer control students (tracking data) were enrolled within the same course as ICB 2.0 students. The three Biology 2 courses used to gather tracking data had different instructors (in Fig. 3). All instructors used similar extensive and regular modern reformed pedagogies in class meetings but guided by a traditional textbook ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]) in the control courses. Although the instructor was not always the same, they scored similarly on Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) teaching observations (level II–IV; Ref. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref26">24</reflink>]). Control students met in the same room, for the same duration, at the same frequency each week. The student population was comprised of STEM majors who all lived in a STEM-focused residential college.</p> <p></p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Integrating Concepts in Biology (ICB) student cohort performance on Medical College Admission Test instrument (MAT) post-test compared with recent historical scores: average normalized control cohorts' MCAT performance each semester from 2007 to 2013 (left) compared with ICB 1.0 and ICB 2.0 cohorts (2 bars on right, respectively). When comparing all semesters, ANOVA with Tukey post hoc analysis found a statistical difference only for Fall 2011. Box plot distribution includes medians and quartiles (box) and range (whiskers). ICB 1.0 students, n = 77; ICB 2.0 students, n = 44; control students, n = 417. *P < 0.05.</p> <p></p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Student performance on Biological Concept Inventory (BCI): ACT-normalized BCI scores of control students and Integrating Concepts in Biology (ICB) students (1.0 and 2.0) at the pre-, mid-, and post-test stages. t-Test and ANOVA comparisons found statistical difference at the posttest (between ICB 1.0 vs. control and ICB 2.0 vs. control). ICB 1.0 students, n = 123; ICB 2.0 students, n = 47; control students, n = 98. Error bars = SE. **P < 0.01.</p> <p></p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Longitudinal tracking of Integrating Concepts in Biology (ICB) student cohort performance vs. peers in their second introductory level biology course. Left to right, categories are grade performance in course 1, course 2, and course 3 of introductory Biology 2. t-Test comparison supported statistical significance present when comparing ICB students vs. their peers in courses 2 and 3. Course 1: ICB students, n = 20 and control students, n = 79; course 2: ICB students, n = 20 and control students, n = 26; course 3: ICB students, n = 16 and control students, n = 24. Error bars = SE. **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-8">Factual Content Knowledge: MCAT Instrument (MAT)</hd> <p>The Medical Assessment Test (MAT) is a 40-question, multiple-choice test comprised of Medical College Admissions Test study questions developed and validated by and purchased from the Association of American Medical Colleges ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>]). MCAT passage questions have been studied by others and deemed to assess higher-level content knowledge than typical multiple-choice exams ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>]). The MAT consists of questions from five general topic categories: cell structure and function, oncogenes/cancer, cellular respiration, microbiology, and DNA structure and function.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-9">Conceptual Content Knowledge: Biology Concept Inventory</hd> <p>The Biology Concept Inventory (BCI) is a diagnostic tool developed with traditional methods required for a concept inventory ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref31">27</reflink>]). The BCI is a valid and reliable multiple-choice instrument, available online. It consists of 30 questions spanning six biological categories with distractors based on established misconceptions gleaned from subject interviews. The BCI's categories include diffusion and drift, energetics and interactions, molecular properties and functions, genetic behaviors, evolutionary mechanisms, and experimental design.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-10">Longitudinal Tracking of Cohort Performance in Next Biology Course</hd> <p>Student performance was tracked into the next introductory biology course during the following semester. Final grade scores (final total points) earned by all ICB students were compared to those earned by peer students enrolled in the same course with the same instructor. Since ICB cohort and peer control students shared the same course experience in these learning environments, the strength of this assessment was the lack of variations between cohorts.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-11">Statistical Evaluation</hd> <p>Data from instruments and from tracking were normalized for variations in each cohort's prior academic performance with American College Testing (ACT) scores (first with ACT science score, secondarily using ACT composite score) ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>]) unless otherwise indicated. Microsoft Excel was used to generate charts and box plots, organize the datasets, and perform statistical tests. For Fig. 1, scores were evaluated by ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) statistical analysis: ICB 1.0 students (<emph>n</emph> = 77), ICB 2.0 students (<emph>n</emph> = 44), and control students (<emph>n</emph> = 417). For Fig. 2, scores were evaluated by Student two-tailed <emph>t</emph> test comparison between control and ICB cohorts (i.e., ICB 1.0 vs. control, ICB 2.0 vs. control) as well as ANOVA evaluation of all datasets: ICB 1.0 students (<emph>n</emph> = 123), ICB 2.0 students (<emph>n</emph> = 47), and control students (<emph>n</emph> = 98). For Fig. 3, the comparison of experimental versus control cohorts' grade performance was evaluated by Student two-tailed <emph>t</emph> tests: ICB students in <emph>course 1</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 20) and control students (<emph>n</emph> = 79); ICB students in <emph>course 2</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 20) and control students (<emph>n</emph> = 26); ICB students in <emph>course 3</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 16) and control students (<emph>n</emph> = 24). Error bars are standard error of the mean (SE) unless otherwise indicated.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-12">RESULTS</hd> <p>Unlike peer control cohorts, students in the CURE lecture ICB curriculum experienced no content-focused lectures connected to traditional textbook readings but instead discussed research designs and examined data from primary literature aligned with course topics (curated in ICB textbook). Whereas in a prior study ICB 1.0 students experienced a 30-wk ICB curriculum during a two-semester introductory biology course sequence, in this study ICB 2.0 students received only a single-semester or 15-wk dose during their first introductory biology course, followed by a traditional second semester course. To keep the timeline aligned in both studies, data collection was applied similarly during a two-semester introductory biology course sequence (pre-, mid-, post-tests) and included longitudinal tracking of ICB students' performance versus peer control students once enrolled together in traditional university courses.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-13">MCAT Instrument: ICB Student Performance Was Comparable to Peer Control Students at End of Ye...</hd> <p>As had been performed since 2000, an MCAT post-test was administered to introductory biology students at the end of the academic year. The ICB 2.0 cohort performed favorably on Loznak's MCAT instrument compared to control cohorts who previously took part in content-focused reformed lectures with traditional textbook readings. ICB 2.0 student cohort performance on MCAT instrument, 63.7%, was similar to that of ICB 1.0 students, 64.5%, and was in the top quintile of all scores since 2000 and at the middle of recent control courses taught by the same instructor (Fig. 1). Average normalized control cohort MCAT performance during 2007–2013 ranged from 59.69% to 66.7%, and the normalized MCAT scores from years 2000–2006 ranged from 53.39% to 64.21% ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-14">Biological Concept Inventory: ICB Students Performed Better than Control Students at End of Y...</hd> <p>At pre (start of course)-, mid (end of course)-, and post (end of academic year)-test stages, BCI concept inventory data were collected and statistically significant differences only found at the end-of-year time point (Fig. 2). ICB 2.0 student performance on the concept inventory was examined alongside performance of ICB 1.0 students and peer control students enrolled in another equal-sized section of the same introductory biology course using the same reformed pedagogies but a traditional content-focused textbook. Overall, students who participated in the ICB 2.0 curriculum performed like those in the ICB 1.0 curriculum and once again had higher scores at the end of the academic year (46.3% and 44.2%, respectively, vs. 34.3%; <emph>P</emph> < 0.01) compared to students who were taught with traditional textbook readings.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-15">Longitudinal Analysis: ICB Students Outperformed Peers Enrolled in Next Biology Course</hd> <p>The following semester, groups of students from the ICB cohort were tracked into their next introductory biology courses, i.e., <emph>course 1</emph> (<emph>instructor 1</emph>), <emph>course 2</emph> (<emph>instructor 2</emph>), and <emph>course 3</emph> (<emph>instructor 3</emph>). The ICB 2.0 students performed well compared to peers in final grade score for each course (Fig. 3). In two courses, statistically significant separation was found when comparing ICB 2.0 student grades to their peers in the same course environment (80.1% vs. 67.4% in <emph>course 2</emph> and 86.9% vs. 79% in <emph>course 3</emph>; <emph>P</emph> < 0.05).</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-16">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192623330-17">CURE Traditional Lectures</hd> <p>In the last decade, the introduction of CURE laboratories as a replacement for traditional confirmatory cookbook laboratories has become an accepted strategy supported by evidence of positive impact ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>]). Science faculty did not need to be trained in this "new" approach. It was a natural conversion. It restored professional practice to the classroom laboratory setting, where students learn "how to do science" ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]). In an analogous way, perhaps traditional confirmatory cookbook lectures should be converted to CURE lecture experiences. Hence, the purpose of this study was to examine the impact of just such an intervention, a CURE lecture approach, which introduced undergraduate research experience strategies into the lecture setting of an introductory biology course. Rather than memorization of traditional textbook biological explanations aided by reformed lectures, a research-focused textbook supplemented by primary literature readings challenged students to construct their knowledge aided by discussions of data and experimental design.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-18">Conventional vs. Constructivist Hypotheses</hd> <p>If the learning of traditional biological explanations from conventional textbooks is essential (particularly for introductory biology), then replacing them all with primary literature readings should dramatically reduce student learning. Yet, alternatively, as promoted by AAAS <emph>Vision and Change</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>]), perhaps substitution of a professional practice for traditional lecture might not lower learning. Ideally designed for the CURE lecture strategy, the ICB textbook bridges the gap. It contains readings that focus on dissection of published figures and experimental designs from the primary literature ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]). Unlike traditional encyclopedic textbooks, it is more akin to a set of published research papers disguised as a textbook for acceptance ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>]). Thus, although more encyclopedic textbooks may include a greater percentage of content per page ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref41">29</reflink>]), perhaps a deeper dive into curated accessible research, focused on experimental data and design, may better help students succeed in gaining both content and skills critical for their success.Whereas in prior studies ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref43">17</reflink>]) ICB students experienced two full semesters of CURE lecture in their introductory biology sequence before detectable gains manifested, in this study the focus was on whether just a single-semester exposure could have a detectable impact. During the year-long assessment period, Loznak's MCAT instrument ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]) and Klymkowsky's Biology Concept Inventory ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>]) and longitudinal tracking were used to assess student learning compared to control students.The MCAT and BCI content-focused assessments used in our first study (ICB 1.0) were repeated in this research (ICB 2.0). The MCAT instrument was selected because it examines gains in factual content knowledge with questions that tend to be cellular focused, whereas another instrument, the Biology Concept Inventory, was chosen to supplement that data, since it tests for robust conceptual understanding and evaluates cellular as well as organismal topics.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-19">Factual Content Knowledge: MCAT Instrument (MAT)</hd> <p>The performance of ICB 2.0 students on the MCAT posttest revealed that ICB students' scores were in the range achieved by peer control students during 13 previous semesters since the year 2000. The "MAT" MCAT instrument was originally developed by Dr. Sarah Loznak in 1999 because the Medical College Admission Test was a well-known assessment valued by peer physiology faculty members. The MCAT passage questions have also been deemed to assess higher-level content knowledge than typical multiple-choice exams ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref46">25</reflink>]). Thus, in this study the MAT content post-test, which had been used for over a decade prior, was well positioned to compare the impact of a new intervention to the history of the same course. In addition, although the controls were all historical classes with different students, after 2006 the instructor remained the same. Hence, these control courses had the same instructor, classroom, and lecture hours and peers drawn from a population of STEM majors in a residential college. One limitation of the MCAT instrument is that it was not built from scratch with regular testing of validity and reliability, like the Biology Concept Inventory.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-20">Conceptual Content Knowledge: Biology Concept Inventory</hd> <p>ICB 2.0 students' performance on Klymkowsky's BCI at the pre-, mid-, and post-test stages was also assessed. The findings indicate that ICB 2.0 students' learning gains were higher than the level achieved by peer control students at the end-of-year time point. The Biology Concept Inventory was selected because it assesses student mastery of fundamental concepts in both organismal and cellular topics when confronting strong distractors based on established frequent misconceptions ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]). Thus, given that each foil is a well-known misconception, all the wrong answers are particularly attractive to students, i.e., very strong distractors. Concept inventories are carefully and professionally developed over years to be valid and reliable; they are difficult for students to do well on, and it is particularly difficult to see improvement during retesting ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref49">30</reflink>]). Thus, the concept inventory was included in this study as an additional assessment, to detect perhaps deeper, more robust changes in conceptual content understanding.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-21">Longitudinal Tracking of Cohort</hd> <p>This study detected evidence of positive longitudinal impact of the ICB curriculum on students' performance. In a prior study, the evidence supported improvements in upper-level courses in the following years ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref50">17</reflink>]). Thus, once again longitudinal tracking was used ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]) but this time to look for more immediate impact. The following semester, students were tracked into three different introductory biology courses. The varied learning environments ICB students experienced in these three different Biology 2 courses were seen as an ideal assessment of ICB 2.0 students' knowledge and skills compared to peers in each class. Each course had a different instructor and curriculum. In two courses, ICB students outperformed their peers. Tracking groups from the experimental cohort into different courses, and comparing their final performance assessment by each instructor, was seen as a valuable holistic evaluation of a range of factors beyond simply content knowledge and thus a suitable complement to the MCAT and BCI instruments.It seems promising that even a short single semester of the CURE lecture intervention may have some lasting impact beyond the end of the semester. CURE experiences (lab and/or lecture) in introductory biology might set a foundation from which students can more quickly excel. This result is reminiscent of Derting's findings that a one-semester active learning intervention led to ever greater separation of the experimental cohort from control peers over the years up to graduation ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>]). Assessing how students did afterward, when enrolled in a traditional course the next semester, compared to peers is a useful source of data to complement pre- to posttesting. One might argue that this could be a more valuable evaluation. All the variables (e.g., teacher, classroom, assessments) are the same for the two cohorts in the next "non-CURE" biology course, which in this study started a month after the experimental course ended. Although the final grade obtained by students in their Biology 2 course is calculated and posted at the very end of the semester, it is a cumulation of assessments completed (e.g., <emph>exams 1</emph>, <emph>2</emph>, <emph>3</emph>) throughout 15 wk of that course's semester. And one might predict that higher performance on multiple assessments is likely for students who had higher course point totals throughout the semester rather than simply on the final assessment. We do not have access to individual exam scores but would like to explore that in future studies.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-22">Strengths and Limitations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192623330-23">Biology Concept Inventory.</hd> <p>Concept inventories are carefully and professionally developed over years and must be valid and reliable, but they are also considered particularly difficult for students to do well on and make gains on ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref53">30</reflink>]). This is a result of each foil being a well-known misconception. Hence, all the wrong answers are particularly attractive to students, i.e., very strong distractors, and thus scores might not translate well to grade performance. The same BCI test was taken three times throughout the full academic year, and therefore it does have limitations. It is possible that students remembered the questions and became better at answering them by the time they took the posttest. Yet impact at midtest was not seen, and subtracting controls should eliminate common inflation effects. If students make gains on a concept inventory instrument, it might suggest that improved understanding is more robust than for other instruments, even the carefully constructed MCAT.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-24">The MCAT instrument (MAT).</hd> <p>This "mini MCAT" posttest has been used for over a decade and thus provided a useful dataset with which to compare ICB student performance. The instrument, nicknamed the MAT, was built with sets of passage questions from MCAT exams. The MCAT questions obtained for use in the MAT were built for validity and reliability, but the MAT instrument itself did not undergo separate testing as was performed for the BCI. Although the historical controls are prior courses with different students, from 2007 onward the instructor remained the same. Hence, control students experienced the same instructor, classroom, and lecture hours and a homogeneous STEM-major population in a residential college, which was then normalized with ACT scores.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-25">ACT normalization.</hd> <p>As done in previous studies ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref54">17</reflink>]), student data were normalized to improve comparisons. A strength of normalization is reduction of innate variation between cohorts unrelated to the intervention. A limitation can be that for first-year undergraduates neither high school grade point average (GPA) nor university GPA tends to be reliable. Although performance on a standardized assessment, the American College Testing exam (ACT) may be the best approach, it still has its predictive limits.In this study, the lack of qualitative data prevents the building of a preliminary hypothesis as to what mechanism led ICB students to outperform peers on the assessments collected the following semester. One might predict that foundational skills built, or better understanding gained in the ICB biology course, could have buoyed their learning gains and performance in the next class, but we do not have any data to support that yet. Although this study's data are all pre-COVID pandemic, the ICB textbook is still in regular use at our university, and a CURE lecture model is currently being deployed across additional biology lecture courses and studied as a part of a National Science Foundation (NSF) research project.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-26">Conclusions</hd> <p>The ICB 2.0 cohort data support prior published findings as well as suggest that even a 15-wk dose of ICB curriculum during a student's first introductory biology course may have positive impact, and certainly did not reduce knowledge gains. This study focused predominantly on assessment of content knowledge when examining student learning gains. Beyond just learning content, perhaps the greatest value of the CURE lecture strategy could be gains in skills. CURE lecture and laboratories woven together in introductory courses could be a powerful equitable experience for all our students. If first-year physiology students in introductory biology courses regularly read papers aligned with fundamental topics and core concepts, examined figures and experimental findings, and discussed experimental design, one can only imagine how that might change their trajectory in upper-level courses, retention in science, and chosen career paths.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-27">DATA AVAILABILITY</hd> <p>Data will be made available upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-28">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>We thank the undergraduate physiology students who passionately participated in this project. We also thank the many undergraduate teaching assistants who promoted and supported this intervention in curriculum and made a fantastic environment for learning in the classroom. We thank Drs. A. Malcolm Campbell and Christopher Paradise at Davidson College for pedagogical guidance and assistance; and James Smith, Peter White, Gerald Urquhart, Shahnaz Masani, Cassie Dresser-Briggs, and Jennifer Doherty at Michigan State University for helpful discussions about teaching and learning and assistance during this study.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-29">GRANTS</hd> <p>Our CF and STEM learning laboratories are supported by Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and Pennsylvania Cystic Fibrosis Inc. grants (to D.B.L.) for our physiology research program and by grants from the National Science Foundation (to D.B.L.) for our education research program.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-30">DISCLOSURES</hd> <p>No conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0192623330-31">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p>D.B.L. conceived and designed research; D.B.L. and M.A.G. performed experiments; D.B.L., M.A.G., D.W.H., and H.L.Z. analyzed data; D.B.L., M.A.G., D.W.H., and H.L.Z. interpreted results of experiments; D.B.L., D.W.H., and H.L.Z. prepared figures; D.B.L. drafted manuscript; D.B.L., M.A.G., D.W.H., and H.L.Z. edited and revised manuscript; D.B.L., M.A.G., D.W.H., and H.L.Z. approved final version of manuscript.</p> <ref id="AN0192623330-32"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Doble J, Karshbaum M, Wolf E, Singsaas E, Wainman JW. Visible local stakeholders in a natural resources course-based undergraduate research experience in General Chemistry II Laboratory. J Chem Educ 101: 4773–4782, 2024.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Linn MC, Palmer E, Baranger A, Gerard E, Stone E. Undergraduate research experiences: impacts and opportunities. Science 347: 1261757, 2015.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Boyd EA, Lazar KB. Undergraduate research science capital: measuring capacity to engage in research. PLoS One 19: e0310053, 2024.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bangera G, Brownell SE. Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE Life Sci Educ 13: 602–606, 2014.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Appel NT, Tanveer A, Brownell S, Blattman JN. Engaging undergraduate students in course-based research improved student learning of course material. CBE Life Sci Educ 23: ar41, 2024.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Auchincloss LC, Laursen SL, Branchaw JL, Eagan K, Graham M, Hanauer DI, Lawrie G, McLinn CW, Pelaez N, Rowland S, Towns M, Trautmann NW, Varma-Nelson P, Weston TJ, Dolan EL. Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report. CBE Life Sci Educ 13: 29–40, 2014.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burmeister AR, Dickinson K, Graham MJ. Bridging trade-offs between traditional and course-based undergraduate research experiences by building student communication skills, identity, and interest. J Microbiol Biol Educ 22: e00156–e00121, 2021.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref4" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Wolkow TD, Jenkins J, Durrenberger L, Swanson-Hoyle K, Hines LM. One early course-based undergraduate research experience produces sustainable knowledge gains, but only transient perception gains. J Microbiol Biol Educ 20: 20.2.32, 2019.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Fendos J, Cai L, Yang X, Ren G, Li L, Yan Z, Lu B, Pi Y, Ma J, Guo B, Wu X, Lu P, Zhang R, Yang J. A course-based undergraduate research experience improves outcomes in mentored research. CBE Life Sci Educ 21: ar49, 2022.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irby SM, Pelaez NJ, Anderson TR. Student perceptions of their gains in course-based undergraduate research abilities identified as the anticipated learning outcomes for a biochemistry CURE. J Chem Educ 9: 56–65, 2020.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krim JS, Coté LE, Schwartz RS, Stone EM, Cleeves JJ, Barry KJ, Burgess W, Buxner SR, Gerton JM, Horvath L, Keller JM, Lee SC, Locke SM, Rebar BM. Models and impacts of science research experiences: a review of the literature of CUREs, UREs, and TREs. CBE Life Sci Educ 18: ar65, 2019.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolan EL. Course-based undergraduate research experiences: current knowledge and future directions). National Academies, 2016. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse%5f177288.pdf.Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewsbury B, Brame CJ. Inclusive teaching. CBE Life Sci Educ 18: fe2, 2019.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey J, Evers A, Schuchartdt A. Students' experiences and perceptions of the scientific research culture after participating in different course-based undergraduate research experience models. CBE Life Sci Educ 21: 1–17, 2022.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barsoum M, Sellers PJ, Campbell AM, Heyer LJ, Paradise CJ. Implementing recommendations for introductory biology by writing a new textbook. CBE Life Sci Educ 12: 106–116, 2013.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wagner JD, Campbell AM, Sly BJ, Paradise CJ. An active textbook converts "vision and tweak" to vision and change. CourseSource 2, 2015.Crossref Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luckie DB, Hoskinson AM, Griffin CE, Hess AL, Price KJ, Tawa A, Thacker SM. Integrating Concepts in Biology textbook increases learning: assessment triangulation using concept inventory, card sorting, and MCAT instruments, followed by longitudinal tracking. CBE Life Sci Educ 16: ar20, 2017.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell AM, Heyer LJ, Paradise CJ. Integrating Concepts in Biology 1st Edition. Trunity. 2014. <ulink href="http://www.trunity.com/products/digital-textbooks/integrating-concepts-in-biology.Google">www.trunity.com/products/digital-textbooks/integrating-concepts-in-biology.Google</ulink> Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: a Call to Action. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2010. https://<ulink href="http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content%5ffiles/VC%5freport.pdf.Google">www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content%5ffiles/VC%5freport.pdf.Google</ulink> Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prestwich KN, Sheehy AM. Integrating Concepts in Biology: a model for more effective ways to introduce students to biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 14: 1–4, 2015.Crossref Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klymkowsky MW, Garvin-Doxas K. Recognizing student misconceptions through Ed's Tools and the Biology Concept Inventory. PLoS Biol 6: e3, 2008.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luckie DB, Krha M, Loznak SD, Maleszewski JJ. The infusion of collaborative inquiry throughout a biology curriculum increases student learning: a four-year study of Teams and Streams. Adv Physiol Educ 28: 199–209, 2004.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman S. Biological Science (4th ed.). Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co, 2010.Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawada D, Piburn M, Judson E, Turley J, Falconer K, Benford R, Bloom I. Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. Sch Sci Math 102: 245–253, 2002.Crossref Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng AY, Lawhorn JK, Lumley T, Freeman S. Application of Bloom's taxonomy debunks the "MCAT myth". Science 319: 414–415, 2008.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klymkowsky MW, Underwood SM, Garvin-Doxas RK. Biological Concepts Instrument (BCI): a diagnostic tool for revealing student thinking (Preprint). arXiv, arXiv.1012.4501, 2010.Crossref Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garvin-Doxas K, Klymkowsky MW. Understanding randomness and its impact on student learning: lessons learned from building the Biology Concept Inventory (BCI). CBE Life Sci Educ 7: 227–233, 2008.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hake RR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66: 64–74, 1998.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rissing SW. Correlation between MCAT biology content specifications and topic scope and sequence of general education college biology textbooks. CBE Life Sci Educ 12: 429–440, 2013.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith JI, Tanner K. The problem of revealing how students think: concept inventories and beyond. CBE Life Sci Educ 9: 1–5, 2010.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creech LR, Sweeder RD. Analysis of student performance in large-enrollment life science courses. CBE Life Scie Educ 11: 386–391, 2012.Crossref Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derting TL, Ebert-May D. Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology: positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE Life Sci Educ 9: 462–472, 2010.Crossref PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Douglas B. Luckie; Maria A. Green; Davin W. Hami and Hannah L. Zawisa</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref52"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1497638
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: CURE Lecture Too: MCAT, BCI, and Tracking Data Show Students Who Discussed Research Data in Lecture Learned More than Peers Using Traditional Textbooks
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Douglas+B%2E+Luckie%22">Douglas B. Luckie</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4428-2965">0000-0002-4428-2965</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maria+A%2E+Green%22">Maria A. Green</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Davin+W%2E+Hami%22">Davin W. Hami</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hannah+L%2E+Zawisa%22">Hannah L. Zawisa</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Advances+in+Physiology+Education%22"><i>Advances in Physiology Education</i></searchLink>. 2026 50(1):254-260.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: American Physiological Society. 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3991. Tel: 301-634-7164; Fax: 301-634-7241; e-mail: webmaster@the-aps.org; Web site: https://www.physiology.org/journal/advances
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Research%22">Student Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lecture+Method%22">Lecture Method</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discussion+%28Teaching+Technique%29%22">Discussion (Teaching Technique)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Textbooks%22">Textbooks</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Conventional+Instruction%22">Conventional Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biology%22">Biology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scientific+Research%22">Scientific Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Introductory+Courses%22">Introductory Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physiology%22">Physiology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Science%22">College Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experimental+Teaching%22">Experimental Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Achievement%22">Science Achievement</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Michigan%22">Michigan</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Medical+College+Admission+Test%22">Medical College Admission Test</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1152/advan.00002.2025
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1043-4046<br />1522-1229
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of an intervention, a "CURE lecture" approach, that introduced course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) strategies into the lecture setting. Rather than learning biological explanations from a traditional textbook, instead students studied primary literature curated in a reformed research-focused textbook and had discussions of data and experimental design. In control cohorts, reformed active and cooperative pedagogies were used in lecture to engage students in learning traditional textbook content. In experimental cohorts, "lecture" format was replaced with active and cooperative "journal club" discussions of published experiments. Prior studies examined use of research-focused "Integrating Concepts in Biology" ("ICB") textbook readings in two sequential introductory biology courses. In this study, assessments focused on student learning gains after a single semester. Klymkowsky's Biology Concept Inventory with known misconceptions as distractors and Loznak's Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) instrument used for over a decade prior joined longitudinal tracking to evaluate impact of intervention. The ICB student cohort had higher scores (46.3% vs. 34.3%) than the control cohort on the concept inventory and on the MCAT questions performed comparably in the range achieved by peer control students since the year 2000. Longitudinal tracking revealed that ICB students immediately outperformed peers in their next biology course the following semester. The literature suggested that a two-semester ICB experience helped students better succeed, and these findings support that even a shorter exposure, of just a single semester, to the CURE lecture strategy is impactful to students.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1497638
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1497638
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1152/advan.00002.2025
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 254
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lecture Method
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discussion (Teaching Technique)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Textbooks
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Conventional Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Biology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scientific Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Introductory Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physiology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experimental Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Michigan
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Medical College Admission Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: CURE Lecture Too: MCAT, BCI, and Tracking Data Show Students Who Discussed Research Data in Lecture Learned More than Peers Using Traditional Textbooks
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Douglas B. Luckie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maria A. Green
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Davin W. Hami
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hannah L. Zawisa
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1043-4046
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1522-1229
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Advances in Physiology Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1