Scientists who are interested in building research programs at primarily-undergraduate institutions (PUIs) have unique considerations compared to colleagues at research-intensive (R1) institutions. Maintaining a research program at a PUI holds unique challenges that should be considered before prospective faculty go on the job market, as they negotiate a job offer, and after they begin a new position. In this article we describe some of the considerations that aspiring and newly hired faculty should keep in mind as they plan out how they will set up a laboratory as a new Principle Investigator (PI) at a PUI. Anyone hoping to start a research program at a PUI should understand both the timeframe of interviews, job offers, and negotiations and the challenges and rewards of working with undergraduate researchers. Once a job is offered, candidates should be aware of the range of negotiable terms that can be part of a start-up package. Space and equipment considerations are also important, and making the most of shared spaces, existing infrastructure, and deals can extend the purchasing power of start-up funds as a new PIs builds their lab. PUIs’ focus on undergraduate education and mentorship leads to important opportunities for collaboration, funding, and bringing research projects directly into undergraduate teaching laboratories. A major focus of any new laboratory leader must be on building a productive, equitable, and supportive laboratory community. Equitable onboarding, mentorship plans, and formalized expectations, can all help build a productive and sustainable laboratory research program. However, important considerations about safety, inclusion, student schedules, and a PI’s own professional commitments are also extremely important concerns when working with undergraduates in research. A successful research program at a PUI will bring students into meaningful scientific inquiry and requires insights and skills that are often not the focus of scientific training. This article aims to describe the scope of setting up a new laboratory as a way to alleviate some of the burden that new and prospective faculty often feel.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) provide students with opportunities for the same gains that apprenticed research with faculty members offer. As their popularity increases, it is important that critical elements of CUREs are supported by thoughtful design. Student experiences in CUREs can provide important insights into why CUREs are so effective. We present evidence from students who participated in CUREs at the introductory, intermediate, and advanced levels, as well as from graduate teaching assistants for an introductory lab course that included a CURE. Students and teaching assistants describe repetition as a valuable element in CUREs and other laboratory experiences. We used student work and open-ended interviews to identify which of five previously described elements of CUREs students found important. Because repetition was particularly salient, we characterized how students described repetition as they experienced it in courses that contained full-length or “micro”-CUREs. In prompted interviews, students described how repetition in CUREs provided cognitive (learning concepts) and practical (learning technical skills) value. Recent graduates who had participated in CUREs at each level of their Biology education were particularly aware that they placed value in repetition and acknowledged it as motivational in their own learning. Many students described repetition in metacognitive terms, which also suggests that as students advance through laboratory and CURE curricula, their understanding of how repetition supports their learning becomes more sophisticated. Finally, we integrated student descriptions to suggest ways in which repetition can be designed into CUREs or other laboratory courses to support scientific learning and enhance students’ sense of scientific identity.

Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) provide the same benefits as individual, mentored faculty research while expanding the availability of research opportunities. One important aspect of CUREs is student’s engagement in collaboration. We developed a partnership with the Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) database, WormBase, in which students submitted annotations of published manuscripts to the website. This activity provided students with a collaborative research activity that benefitted the greater scientific community and enhanced students’ understanding of molecular genetics during the COVID-19 pandemic. WormBase relies on community annotators to read published articles and input phenotypic data. Students submitted a total of nine annotations directly to WormBase, which were curated by WormBase to ensure correctness and to reduce overlap from redundant annotations. Due to the stress on students during this time of crisis, qualitative data were collected in lieu of quantitative pre-post analyses. Students described their learning experiences in terms of interactions with the scientific community and the “real world”, content knowledge and competencies, and changes in perspectives and use of resources. Students also reported that this activity was helpful in their understanding of critical molecular genetics concepts. Most students reported on cognitive processes that represent mid-level Bloom’s categories. The shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic created an immediate need for meaningful, collaborative experiences in CUREs. By partnering with WormBase, students gained insight into the scientific community and contributed as community members. We describe possible modifications for future courses, potential expansion of the WormBase collaboration, and future directions for quantitative analysis.