Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 117 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

Two experimentation-based physics labs produce similar student outcomes in critical thinking and attitudes, regardless of added broad relevance.

2026-06-28 18:12 UTC pith:FWSDBQUN

load-bearing objection The paper finds similar outcomes from a muon-detector lab and a standard-equipment lab, suggesting broad relevance may not drive gains, but the design needs tighter checks on other differences. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.00464 v1 pith:FWSDBQUN submitted 2026-05-30 physics.ed-ph

CURE-like, not cure-all: Varying broad relevance in experimentation labs produces similar student outcomes

Elly Markert , Mike Verostek , Matthew Dew , Xuan Chen , Mark Lory-Moran , Sofi Padavan , Hissaa Walia , Peter Wittich
show 1 more author
N.G. Holmes
This is my paper
classification physics.ed-ph
keywords physics educationCUREexperimentation labsstudent outcomesbroad relevancemuon detectorscritical thinkingattitudes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether making a physics lab more broadly relevant to real research improves student results. One lab used muon detectors to link to particle physics outside the classroom, while the other relied on standard introductory equipment with no such connection. Both were run in parallel with similar structures, and researchers tracked gains in experimental critical thinking skills plus attitudes toward labs. Hierarchical linear modeling showed no significant differences between the groups. The authors conclude that broad relevance by itself does not drive better learning or motivation in these settings.

Core claim

By running two experimentation-based labs in parallel—one CURE-like lab that increases broad relevance through muon detectors and one using typical introductory physics equipment—the study finds that both produce similar student outcomes in experimental critical thinking skills and attitudes towards physics labs. The results suggest that increased levels of broad relevance may not inherently improve gains in student learning or attitudes compared to other well-designed experimentation-based labs.

What carries the argument

Parallel comparison of a muon-detector lab versus a standard-equipment lab to isolate the effect of broad relevance on student outcomes.

Load-bearing premise

The muon-detector lab and the standard-equipment lab differ primarily and sufficiently in the single dimension of broad relevance, with all other instructional features held constant enough to isolate that variable.

What would settle it

A follow-up study that measures and controls for unaccounted differences in instruction quality or student engagement and still finds no outcome gap would support the claim; a large outcome gap favoring the muon lab under tighter controls would falsify it.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Well-designed labs using standard equipment can match the student gains of more novel, relevance-enhanced setups.
  • Resource-intensive elements like novel research projects may not be required for comparable improvements in critical thinking or attitudes.
  • Other specific components of lab design, beyond broad relevance, should be examined for their role in student outcomes.
  • Experimentation-based labs remain viable without full CURE features for achieving similar results.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Lab redesign efforts could focus more on scalable features rather than chasing external relevance.
  • The similarity in outcomes may hold only for short-term measures; longer-term tracking of skill retention could differ.
  • Similar tests in other STEM disciplines might reveal whether broad relevance effects vary by subject.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper compares two parallel experimentation-based introductory physics labs: a CURE-like version using muon detectors to increase broad relevance and a version using standard classroom equipment without external relevance. Student outcomes in experimental critical thinking skills and attitudes toward physics labs are measured and compared via hierarchical linear modeling. The authors report similar outcomes between the two formats and conclude that increased broad relevance does not inherently produce superior gains in learning or attitudes.

Significance. If the two lab formats are shown to be matched on all instructional features except broad relevance, the result would contribute to the growing literature questioning whether full CUREs are required for positive student outcomes in physics labs. The parallel implementation design and focus on isolating one CURE component are strengths that could inform more scalable lab reforms.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (lab descriptions)] The central claim that similar outcomes can be attributed to the relevance manipulation requires that the muon-detector and standard-equipment labs differ only in broad relevance. The abstract states the labs were run 'in parallel' but provides no protocol details, pre/post measures, or evidence that inquiry level, data-analysis demands, student autonomy, assessment alignment, equipment novelty, or instructor scaffolding were held constant. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting the null result as evidence against the value of broad relevance.
  2. [Abstract (results and methods summary)] No sample sizes, effect sizes, baseline equivalence checks, or exclusion criteria are reported. Without these, it is not possible to evaluate whether the hierarchical linear model supports the conclusion of similar outcomes or to assess the precision of the similarity claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the specific pre/post instruments used to measure critical thinking and attitudes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the abstract to incorporate additional details on lab protocols, sample characteristics, and statistical reporting while preserving its conciseness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (lab descriptions)] The central claim that similar outcomes can be attributed to the relevance manipulation requires that the muon-detector and standard-equipment labs differ only in broad relevance. The abstract states the labs were run 'in parallel' but provides no protocol details, pre/post measures, or evidence that inquiry level, data-analysis demands, student autonomy, assessment alignment, equipment novelty, or instructor scaffolding were held constant. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting the null result as evidence against the value of broad relevance.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, due to length constraints, does not enumerate the specific controls used to isolate broad relevance. The full manuscript includes a methods section that details the parallel implementation, including matched inquiry levels, data-analysis tasks, student autonomy, assessment alignment, and instructor scaffolding, with the sole systematic difference being the muon detectors for broad relevance. To strengthen the abstract, we have added a sentence clarifying that the labs were designed to be equivalent on these dimensions except for the relevance component, with full protocols described in the methods. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract (results and methods summary)] No sample sizes, effect sizes, baseline equivalence checks, or exclusion criteria are reported. Without these, it is not possible to evaluate whether the hierarchical linear model supports the conclusion of similar outcomes or to assess the precision of the similarity claim.

    Authors: The abstract omits these quantitative elements to remain within typical length limits. The results section of the manuscript reports the sample sizes, effect sizes from the HLM analysis, baseline equivalence checks between conditions, and exclusion criteria. We have revised the abstract to include a concise statement of the total sample size and the key finding of comparable outcomes (with effect sizes referenced to the main text) to allow readers to better evaluate the claims. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical comparison with no derivations or self-referential steps

full rationale

The paper conducts a direct empirical study comparing student outcomes in two parallel experimentation-based labs using pre/post measures and hierarchical linear modeling. No equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, ansatzes, or derivation chains exist. The central claim rests on measured data rather than any quantity defined in terms of itself or justified solely by self-citation. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the result. This is a standard non-circular empirical design.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical education study; no mathematical derivations, fitted constants, or new postulated entities are introduced. The analysis relies on standard hierarchical linear modeling whose assumptions are not detailed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5852 in / 1063 out tokens · 19529 ms · 2026-06-28T18:12:30.014357+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Physics labs that engage students in practices authentic to experimental physics (experimentation-based labs) are being implemented to modernize the undergraduate physics curriculum and broaden participation in physics. Accordingly, prior research has positioned Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) as a means to extend the benefits of authentic undergraduate research experiences to more students. However, CUREs are resource-intensive and difficult to implement; a continuous stream of novel research projects adaptable for undergraduate courses is rare. Further, little is known about which specific components of a CURE are crucial to improving student outcomes and which components could be scaled back to improve feasibility for a wider range of class settings. In this study, we aim to isolate the component of broad relevance by running two experimentation-based labs in parallel: one "CURE-like" that increases broad relevance through the use of muon detectors, and one that uses equipment typical to an introductory physics lab and not relevant beyond the classroom. We measure student outcomes for both experimental critical thinking skills and attitudes towards physics labs. We use hierarchical linear modeling to compare student outcomes between the two labs. We find that both experimentation-based labs produce similar student outcomes. Our results suggest that increased levels of broad relevance may not inherently improve gains in student learning or attitudes. Future work should further investigate which components of different experimentation-based lab formats are associated with gains in student outcomes. Although this study did not implement a full CURE, our findings align with a growing body of evidence challenging the idea that CUREs are uniquely positioned to achieve superior student outcomes over other well-designed experimentation-based labs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00464 by Elly Markert, Hissaa Walia, Mark Lory-Moran, Matthew Dew, Mike Verostek, N.G. Holmes, Peter Wittich, Sofi Padavan, Xuan Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Representation of the range of discovery and broad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Predictor matrix for multiple imputation. “Section” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Box and whisker plots showing the distribution of presurvey and postsurvey scores for each construct across each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Results of hierarchical linear modeling of change in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Estimated marginal means (EMMs) for construct scores of different demographics of students. EMMs are standardized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. A visual check for hierarchical linear modeling’s assumption of linearity for all five constructs. These plots display the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. A visual check for hierarchical linear modeling’s assumption of normality for all five constructs. These plots display [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Results of hierarchical linear modeling of change in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Collect data and refine an experimental procedure iteratively and reflectively

  2. [2]

    Evaluate the processes and outcomes of an experi- ment qualitatively and quantitatively

  3. [3]

    Extend the scope of an investigation whether or not the results come out as expected

  4. [4]

    Communicate the process and outcomes of an ex- periment

  5. [5]

    partner agreement

    Conduct an experiment collaboratively and ethi- cally Each learning outcome included several sub-outcomes, ranging from comparing measurements to sharing re- sponsibility for experimental tasks. Students attended one two-hour lab section (with 20-25 students per sec- tion) and one 50-minute lecture per week (with 200-300 students per lecture). All student...

    2032

  6. [6]

    Did not disclose

    For a majority of demographic groups, EMMs are clustered near zero across both SALT and PEPPER con- ditions, suggesting no strong pattern of differential effect by gender, first generation status, race/ethnicity, or ma- jor. Demographic groups that show greater variability in EMMs also have larger standard errors, reflecting in- creased uncertainty in the...

    2032

  7. [7]

    President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Tech- nology,Engage to Excel: Producing one million addi- tional college graduates with degrees in science, technol- ogy, engineering, and mathematics, Tech. Rep. (Presi- dent’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    Quinn, H

    H. Quinn, H. A. Schweingruber, and T. Keller,A Frame- work for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscut- 17 FIG. 8. Results of hierarchical linear modeling of change in PLIC and attitude scores for physics majors controlling for section and semester due to the PEPPER intervention. A value greater than zero indicates a positive effect on score, whereas ...

    2012

  9. [9]

    Subcommittee of the AAPT Committee on Laborato- ries,AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum, Tech. Rep. (American Association of Physics Teachers, 2014)

    2014

  10. [10]

    Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs, Phys21: Preparing Physics Students for 21st Century Careers, Tech. Rep. (American Physical Society and American Association of Physics Teachers, 2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    Laursen,Levers for Change: An assessment of progress on changing STEM instruction, Tech

    S. Laursen,Levers for Change: An assessment of progress on changing STEM instruction, Tech. Rep. (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    National Research Council,America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science, Tech. Rep. 0309096715 (The National Academies Press, Washing- ton, D.C., 2005)

    2005

  13. [13]

    Holmes and C

    N. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Introductory physics labs: We can do better, Physics Today71, 38 (2018), publisher: American Institute of Physics

    2018

  14. [14]

    E. M. Smith and N. G. Holmes, Best practice for in- structional labs, Nature Physics , 1 (2021), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2021

  15. [15]

    J. M. May, Historical analysis of innovation and research in physics instructional laboratories: Recurring themes and future directions, Physical Review Physics Educa- tion Research19, 020168 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  16. [16]

    Etkina, A

    E. Etkina, A. V. Heuvelen, D. T. Brookes, and D. Mills, Role of Experiments in Physics Instruction — A Process Approach, The Physics Teacher40, 351 (2002)

    2002

  17. [17]

    R. J. Beichner, J. M. Saul, R. J. Allain, D. L. Dear- dorff, and D. S. Abbott,Introduction to SCALE-UP: Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Uni- versity Physics., Tech. Rep. (2000)

    2000

  18. [18]

    D. R. Dounas-Frazer and H. J. Lewandowski, The Mod- elling Framework for Experimental Physics: descrip- tion, development, and applications, European Journal of Physics39, 064005 (2018), publisher: IOP Publish- ing

    2018

  19. [19]

    B. M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Incorporating learning goals about modeling into an upper-division physics laboratory experiment, Ameri- can Journal of Physics82, 876 (2014)

    2014

  20. [20]

    E. M. Smith, M. M. Stein, C. Walsh, and N. Holmes, Direct Measurement of the Impact of Teaching Exper- imentation in Physics Labs, Physical Review X10, 011029 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

    2020

  21. [21]

    L. C. Auchincloss, S. L. Laursen, J. L. Branchaw, K. Ea- gan, M. Graham, D. I. Hanauer, G. Lawrie, C. M. McLinn, N. Pelaez, S. Rowland, M. Towns, N. M. Traut- mann, P. Varma-Nelson, T. J. Weston, and E. L. Dolan, Assessment of course-based undergraduate research ex- periences: a meeting report., CBE life sciences educa- tion13, 29 (2014)

    2014

  22. [22]

    S. E. Rodenbusch, P. R. Hernandez, S. L. Simmons, and E. L. Dolan, Early Engagement in Course-Based Research Increases Graduation Rates and Completion of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Degrees, CBE Life Sci Educ15, ar20 (2016), num Pages: ar20-

    2016

  23. [23]

    Bangera and S

    G. Bangera and S. E. Brownell, Course-based under- graduate research experiences can make scientific re- search more inclusive, CBE Life Sciences Education13, 602 (2014), publisher: American Society for Cell Biol- ogy

    2014

  24. [24]

    Werth, C

    A. Werth, C. G. West, and H. Lewandowski, Impacts on student learning, confidence, and affect in a remote, large-enrollment, course-based undergraduate research experience in physics, Physical Review Physics Educa- tion Research18, 010129 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  25. [25]

    Estrada, M

    M. Estrada, M. Burnett, A. G. Campbell, P. B. Camp- bell, W. F. Denetclaw, C. G. Guti´ errez, S. Hurtado, G. H. John, J. Matsui, R. McGee,et al., Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in stem, CBE—Life Sciences Education15, es5 (2016)

    2016

  26. [26]

    A. J. Buchanan and G. R. Fisher, Current Status and Implementation of Science Practices in Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs): A Sys- tematic Literature Review, CBE—Life Sciences Educa- tion21, ar83 (2022), publisher: American Society for Cell Biology (lse)

    2022

  27. [27]

    L. A. Corwin, M. J. Graham, and E. L. Dolan, Mod- eling Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experi- ences: An Agenda for Future Research and Evaluation, CBE—Life Sciences Education14, es1 (2015), pub- lisher: American Society for Cell Biology (lse)

    2015

  28. [28]

    NSF staff,Leading the World in Discovery and Inno- vation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026, Tech. Rep. (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Experimental Skills for Undergraduate Career Preparation in Quantum Information Science and Engineering

    S. El-Adawy, A. Pi˜ na, B. M. Zwickl, and H. Lewandowski, Experimental skills for undergraduate career preparation in quantum information science and engineering, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.09382 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    D. E. Meltzer and V. K. Otero, A brief history of physics education in the United States, American Journal of Physics83, 447 (2015), publisher: American Associa- tion of Physics Teachers. [25]Adapting to a Changing World–Challenges and Op- portunities in Undergraduate Physics Education, Tech. 18 Rep. 978-0-309-28303-8 (National Academies Press, Washington...

    2015

  31. [31]

    Cardona, D

    P. Cardona, D. Z. Alaee, and B. Zwickl, Access to op- portunities affects physics majors’ interest and choice of methods specialization, inPhysics Education Research Conference 2021, PER Conference (Virtual Conference,

    2021

  32. [32]

    American Physical Society, Physics Degrees by Race/Ethnicity, Available athttps://www.aps.org/ programs/education/statistics/degreesbyrace.cfm (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, In- tegrated Postsecondary System (IPEDS), Available at https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/(2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Hazari, G

    Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shana- han, Connecting high school physics experiences, out- come expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, Journal of Research in Science Teaching47, n/a (2010), publisher: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company

    2010

  35. [35]

    H. B. Carlone and A. Johnson, Understanding the sci- ence experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens, Journal of Research in Sci- ence Teaching44, 1187 (2007), publisher: Wiley Sub- scription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company

    2007

  36. [36]

    R. M. Lock, Z. Hazari, and G. Potvin, Physics career intentions: The effect of physics identity, math identity, and gender, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1513 (American Institute of Physics, 2013) pp. 262–265

    2013

  37. [37]

    R. M. Lock and Z. Hazari, Discussing underrepresenta- tion as a means to facilitating female students’ physics identity development, Physical Review Physics Educa- tion Research12, 020101 (2016), publisher: American Physical Society

    2016

  38. [38]

    Holland,Identity and agency in cultural worlds(Har- vard university press, Cambridge, MA, 2001)

    D. Holland,Identity and agency in cultural worlds(Har- vard university press, Cambridge, MA, 2001)

    2001

  39. [39]

    A. C. Barton and E. Tan, We Be Burnin’! Agency, Identity, and Science Learning, Journal of the Learning Sciences19, 187 (2010)

    2010

  40. [40]

    A. J. Gonsalves, Exploring how gender figures the iden- tity trajectories of two doctoral students in observa- tional astrophysics, Physical Review Physics Education Research14, 010146 (2018), publisher: American Phys- ical Society

    2018

  41. [41]

    Lopatto, Survey of Undergraduate Research Experi- ences (SURE): first findings., Cell biology education3, 270 (2004)

    D. Lopatto, Survey of Undergraduate Research Experi- ences (SURE): first findings., Cell biology education3, 270 (2004)

    2004

  42. [42]

    Zohrabi Alaee, M

    D. Zohrabi Alaee, M. K. Campbell, and B. M. Zwickl, Impact of virtual research experience for undergradu- ates experiences on students’ psychosocial gains during the COVID-19 pandemic, Physical Review Physics Edu- cation Research18, 010101 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  43. [43]

    Hunter, S

    A.-B. Hunter, S. L. Laursen, and E. Seymour, Becom- ing a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional develop- ment, Science Education91, 36 (2007)

    2007

  44. [44]

    G. D. Kuh,High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they mat- ter(Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC, 2008)

    2008

  45. [45]

    Finley and T

    A. Finley and T. McNair, Assessing underserved stu- dents’ engagement in high-impact practices (2013)

    2013

  46. [46]

    M. K. Eagan Jr, S. Hurtado, M. J. Chang, G. A. Garcia, F. A. Herrera, and J. C. Garibay, Making a difference in science education: The impact of undergraduate re- search programs, American educational research journal 50, 683 (2013)

    2013

  47. [47]

    Hu and V

    T.-L. Hu and V. M. Borden, Bridging the divide: Ex- ploring equity gaps in undergraduate research partici- pation among black and african american and hispanic and latinx students, Research in Higher Education66, 22 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Pierszalowski, F

    S. Pierszalowski, F. Smith, and D. L´ opez-Cevallos, Research experiences for all undergraduate students? building a more equitable and inclusive office of under- graduate research at a land-grant institution, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning52, 38 (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    Etkina, A

    E. Etkina, A. Karelina, and M. Ruibal-Villasenor, How long does it take? A study of student acquisition of scientific abilities, Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research4, 020108 (2008)

    2008

  50. [50]

    Walsh, K

    C. Walsh, K. N. Quinn, and N. G. Holmes, Assessment of critical thinking in physics labs: concurrent validity, inPhysics Education Research Conference 2018, edited by A. Traxler, Y. Cao, and S. Wolf (Washington, D.C., 2018)

    2018

  51. [51]

    B. M. Zwickl, D. Hu, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Model-based reasoning in the physics lab- oratory: Framework and initial results, Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research11, 020113 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    Sulaiman, A

    N. Sulaiman, A. Werth, and H. Lewandowski, Students’ views about experimental physics in a large-enrollment introductory lab focused on experimental scientific prac- tices, Physical Review Physics Education Research19, 010116 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Developing skills versus reinforcing concepts in physics labs: Insight from a survey of students’ beliefs about experimental physics, Physical Review Physics Education Research 13, 010108 (2017), publisher: American Physical Soci- ety

    2017

  54. [54]

    Walsh, H

    C. Walsh, H. J. Lewandowski, and N. G. Holmes, Skills- focused lab instruction improves critical thinking skills and experimentation views for all students, Physical Re- view Physics Education Research18, 010128 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    S. E. Brownell and M. J. Kloser, Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course- based undergraduate research experiences in under- graduate biology, Studies in Higher Education40, 525 (2015), publisher: Routledge

    2015

  56. [56]

    E. L. Dolan, Course-based undergraduate research expe- riences: Current knowledge and future directions, Natl Res Counc Comm Pap1, 1 (2016)

    2016

  57. [57]

    J. S. Krim, L. E. Cot´ e, R. S. Schwartz, E. M. Stone, J. J. Cleeves, K. J. Barry, W. Burgess, S. R. Buxner, J. M. Gerton, L. Horvath, J. M. Keller, S. C. Lee, S. M. Locke, and B. M. Rebar, Models and Impacts of Sci- ence Research Experiences: A Review of the Literature of CUREs, UREs, and TREs, CBE-Life Sciences Edu- cation18, ar65 (2019), publisher: Ame...

    2019

  58. [58]

    K. A. Treibergs, M. R. Stetzer, A. N. Olson, K. Schmid, T. Adjei-Opong, R. Onimode, K. Noyes, E. R. Elder- mire, B. A. Couch, and M. K. Smith, A scoping re- view of published lesson plans showcases two decades 19 of change in undergraduate life science education re- sources, CBE—Life Sciences Education24, ar40 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    M. M. Wooten, K. Coble, A. W. Puckett, and T. Rec- tor, Investigating introductory astronomy students’ perceived impacts from participation in course-based undergraduate research experiences, Physical Review Physics Education Research14, 010151 (2018), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

    2018

  60. [60]

    H. B. Hewitt, M. N. Simon, C. Mead, S. Grayson, G. L. Beall, R. T. Zellem, K. Tock, and K. A. Pearson, Development and assessment of a course-based under- graduate research experience for online astronomy ma- jors, Physical Review Physics Education Research19, 020156 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  61. [61]

    Rabosky, J

    K. Rabosky, J. Armstrong, and A. Johnston, A CURE (Course-Based Undergraduate Research) for Advanced Physics Lab, The Physics Teacher63, 53 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Werth, K

    A. Werth, K. Oliver, C. G. West, and H. Lewandowski, Assessing student engagement with teamwork in an on- line, large-enrollment course-based undergraduate re- search experience in physics, Physical Review Physics Education Research18, 020128 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  63. [63]

    K. A. Oliver, A. Werth, and H. Lewandowski, Student experiences with authentic research in a remote, in- troductory course-based undergraduate research expe- rience in physics, Physical Review Physics Education Research19, 010124 (2023), publisher: American Phys- ical Society

    2023

  64. [64]

    Werth, C

    A. Werth, C. G. West, N. Sulaiman, and H. Lewandowski, Enhancing students’ views of experimental physics through a course-based under- graduate research experience, Physical Review Physics Education Research19, 020151 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  65. [65]

    L. A. Corwin, E. L. Dolan, M. J. Graham, D. I. Hanauer, and N. Pelaez, The need to be sure about cures: Discovery and relevance as critical elements of cures for nonmajors, Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education19, 10 (2018)

    2018

  66. [66]

    L. A. Corwin, C. R. Runyon, E. Ghanem, M. Sandy, G. Clark, G. C. Palmer, S. Reichler, S. E. Rodenbusch, and E. L. Dolan, Effects of Discovery, Iteration, and Collaboration in Laboratory Courses on Undergradu- ates’ Research Career Intentions Fully Mediated by Stu- dent Ownership, CBE-Life Sciences Education17, ar20 (2018)

    2018

  67. [67]

    K. M. Cooper, J. N. Blattman, T. Hendrix, and S. E. Brownell, The impact of broadly relevant novel discov- eries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned cure, CBE—Life Sciences Education18, ar57 (2019)

    2019

  68. [68]

    E. C. Goodwin, V. Anokhin, M. J. Gray, D. E. Za- jic, J. E. Podrabsky, and E. E. Shortlidge, Is This Science? Students’ Experiences of Failure Make a Research-Based Course Feel Authentic, CBE-Life Sci- ences Education20, 1 (2021)

    2021

  69. [69]

    C. B. Russell and G. C. Weaver, A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based labora- tory curricula: impacts on understanding of the nature of science, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.12, 57 (2011)

    2011

  70. [70]

    Rowland, R

    S. Rowland, R. Pedwell, G. Lawrie, J. Lovie-Toon, and Y. Hung, Do We Need to Design Course-Based Under- graduate Research Experiences for Authenticity?, CBE life sciences education15, ar79 (2016), publisher: Amer- ican Society for Cell Biology

    2016

  71. [71]

    C. J. Ballen, S. K. Thompson, J. E. Blum, N. P. New- strom, and S. Cotner, Discovery and Broad Relevance May Be Insignificant Components of Course-Based Un- dergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) for Non- Biology Majors†, Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education19, 10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1515 (2018), pub- lisher: asm Pub2Web

    work page doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i2.1515 2018

  72. [72]

    Hebert, J

    S. Hebert, J. E. Blum, D. Wassenberg, D. Marks, K. Barry, and S. Cotner, Open-inquiry vs. broadly rel- evant short-term research experiences for non-biology majors, Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 22, 10 (2021)

    2021

  73. [73]

    A. L. Lansverk, D. A. Lichti, K. W. Blinka, and K. L. Callis-Duehl, Comparing the outcomes of” pre-cure” compared to inquiry-based introductory biology labs., Bioscene: Journal of College Biology Teaching46, 10 (2020)

    2020

  74. [74]

    C. W. Beck, M. F. Cole, and N. M. Gerardo, Can we quantify if it’sa cure?, Journal of Microbiology & Biol- ogy Education24, e00210 (2023)

    2023

  75. [75]

    Holmes and C

    N. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Examining and contrast- ing the cognitive activities engaged in undergraduate research experiences and lab courses, Physical Review Physics Education Research12, 020103 (2016), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

    2016

  76. [76]

    L. B. Buck, M. H. Towns, and S. L. Bretz, Research and Teaching: Characterizing the Level of Inquiry in the Undergraduate Laboratory, Journal of College Science Teaching38, 52 (2008)

    2008

  77. [77]

    Stuckey, A

    M. Stuckey, A. Hofstein, R. Mamlok-Naaman, and I. Eilks, The meaning of ‘relevance’in science education and its implications for the science curriculum, Studies in science education49, 1 (2013)

    2013

  78. [78]

    Kapon, A

    S. Kapon, A. Laherto, and O. Levrini, Disciplinary au- thenticity and personal relevance in school science, Sci- ence Education102, 1077 (2018)

    2018

  79. [79]

    L. A. Corwin, C. Runyon, A. Robinson, and E. L. Dolan, The Laboratory Course Assessment Survey: A Tool to Measure Three Dimensions of Research-Course Design., CBE life sciences education14, ar37 (2015), num Pages: ar37-

    2015

  80. [80]

    Sundstrom, J

    M. Sundstrom, J. Gambrell, C. Green, A. L. Traxler, and E. Brewe, Relative benefits of different active learn- ing methods to conceptual physics learning, Nature Physics , 1 (2026), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2026

Showing first 80 references.