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

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.