Development and implementation of a classroom‐based Authentic Research Experience, Physiological Models for Human Disease.

Abstract

The National Academies and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have acknowledged that undergraduate education could be improved by more opportunities in authentic research (1, 2). In addition, there appears to be strong correlations between research‐based laboratories fostering an increased interest in STEM disciplines and improved grades, over traditional “cookbook” laboratories. This is especially true for underrepresented minorities and given our changing demographics at Quinnipiac, designing courses that better engage and support the student body is an essential component to our mission (3). Authentic research experiences are being implemented at many colleges and universities, as a means of giving students hands on experience conducting real science. Since there are limited research opportunities for our students to conduct faculty‐mentored research, developing a course where students can have an authentic research experience can address these shortages and obstacles (4). Additionally, in a senior exit survey completed by students within the College of Arts and Science, they expressed an interest in having more authentic lab experiences, more independent research opportunities and they wished they participated in these opportunities earlier in their career. To address some aspects of these shortages an authentic research course was developed to give students the opportunity to design and carry out experiments using one of four model organisms. Drosophila melanogaster (Fruit Fly), Caenorhabditis elgans (Roundworm), Dugesia tigrina (Planaria), or Danio rerio (Zebrafish), were all selected as model organisms because of their adaptability to undergraduate research and breadth of research topics. Student groups designed a novel experiment and generated a hypothesis, based on the current literature. The students were responsible for the animal husbandry of the models; C. elegans, D. tigrina and D. melanogaster throughout the course and performed experiments for over 50% of the semester. Once the experimental design and materials list were submitted students conducted experiments in weeks 4–6 and then analyzed their data. Following this data analysis, student groups either: repeated the same experiment, refined their experiment or generated a new question and then performed experimentation in weeks 8–11. Repeating experiments is a necessary component of scientific research, one that is typically lost in a traditional cookie‐cutter laboratory design. Students spent the remaining weeks of the semester working in their groups, analyzing data and preparing their oral presentation. The course has ran twice (Fall 2015 and Fall 2017) since it was developed and student survey response reports general satisfaction with the course.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.