Integrating museum education into an introductory biology CURE leads to positive perceptions of scientific research and museum exhibitions among students, faculty, and staff

ABSTRACT

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been increasingly incorporated into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula, leading to greater inclusion of students in real-world STEM practices. Implicit within the definition of CUREs is the notion that generated research findings will have relevancy to one or more communities beyond the boundaries of the classroom. However, limited studies have examined this dimension of CUREs, and those that have present conflicting results. To address these concerns, we conducted an exploratory mixed methods study to investigate the impact of embedding a museum education experience into a one-semester introductory biology CURE on student, faculty, and staff outcomes. Analysis of student survey data indicated improvement in attitudes, confidence, and science/museum skills following participation in the CURE. Semi-structured interview responses provided by CURE faculty and museum staff revealed similar perceptions, highlighting the value of museums as a novel avenue for engaging CURE students. Collectively, these data suggest that involving and supporting STEM students in the design and installation of museum exhibits has the potential to be a powerful tool for achieving broader relevance in CUREs.

KEYWORDS:

• Museum education
• CURE
• course-based undergraduate research experience
• broader relevance
• pollinators

Introduction

Since their advent, course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have provided a mechanism for increasing numbers of students to engage in relevant scientific work. Contrary to more prescriptive models of laboratory education, CUREs encourage scholars to collaboratively and iteratively examine novel questions in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields through the use of disciplinary practices (Auchincloss et al. 2014). Findings generated as a result of those investigations should ideally have significance beyond the boundaries of the classroom (e.g. for scientific or public audiences). Yet, this latter element – what is known as broader relevance – is arguably the least explored within the literature base on CUREs.

Current discussions of broader relevance have highlighted the close relationship between this dimension of CUREs and that of discovery (e.g. Brownell and Kloser 2015; Corwin et al. 2015) and have implied that incorporating all five dimensions of CUREs (scientific practices, discovery, broader relevance, collaboration, and iteration; Auchincloss et al. 2014) might impose too great a workload upon faculty (Brownell and Kloser 2015). Ballen et al. (2018) have even argued that discovery and broader relevance are perhaps not important components of biological sciences CUREs, at least for non-majors populations, although it should be noted that this publication was met with an almost-immediate response expressing concerns regarding the methodological rigour of the article (Corwin et al. 2018).

More acutely, in a systematic literature review conducted by Donegan et al. (in review), the authors demonstrated that, out of 87 articles describing CURE curricula in various biological sciences subdisciplines, nearly half either did not include an explicit discussion of how broader relevance was achieved or inferred that in-class presentations/written assignments constituted broader relevance. Of the remaining 53% of articles that reported achieving broader relevance in the context of the CURE, the majority did so via external presentations (29 of 46 articles) and/or planned- or in-press publications (14 of 46 articles). In light of these observations, the authors advocated for a more expansive view that encompasses diverse forms of broader relevance aligned to both the research and pedagogical goals of one’s CURE. In other words, while scientific publications and presentations are arguably staples of disseminating academic work, CURE student deliverables could include a host of other media (e.g. policy papers; infographics designed for one’s community) depending upon the intended goals of the course and the audience(s) to be impacted by the research findings (Auchincloss et al. 2014).

We contend that one unique approach to addressing broader relevance is through the integration of museum education (Milkova et al. 2013). The underutilisation of this approach in CURE contexts may be due, in part, to the fact that STEM museum programmes are often geared towards younger children (Chi et al. 2015). Arguably, however, museum programmes can make a difference in an individual’s life regardless of that individual’s age. For instance, in their study of autobiographical accounts provided by visitors to the science and children’s museums comprising the YouthALIVE network, Baum et al. (2000) noted that teenage students developed better perceptions of themselves and their place in society after programme participation. At the collegiate level, two notable examples of synergies between biology and museum education have addressed the importance of sharing scientific knowledge with the community. First, in 2006, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) leveraged resources associated with their Learning Lab to create experiential opportunities outside of the classroom with the intention of widely distributing these projects to other museums for implementation (Vandiver et al. 2008). Similarly, the Nature Park & Galleries (NPG) on the science campus at Hebrew University in Jerusalem created several workshops in ecology, evolution, botany, cell biology, animal structure and function, history of science, cartography, architecture, and design (with differing presentation formats) with the idea that thousands of people, including students, could benefit from these experiences (Camhi et al. 2013).

As suggested above, museums, including science museums, are not intended simply as an entertainment outlet. Museum education can intentionally address attendee knowledge gaps while serving as a supplemental location for teaching and learning (Oppenheimer 1968). Indeed, museums are considered informal science education (ISE) locations that improve interest and knowledge of science while increasing scientific literacy, often reaching out to the K-12 community (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] 1993; Hein 2009; Sample Mcmeeking et al. 2016). Students who have a chance to work with museum personnel ‘behind the scenes’ want to bring their acquaintances to that museum because of their positive experience (Roussou et al. 2007, June, June), and educational opportunities offered through museums can be a powerful tool in K-12 teaching (Vallance 2004).

Unfortunately, a Boolean search of ‘museum education’ AND ‘course-based undergraduate research experience’ returns no relevant citations. This suggests that, although museum education is beneficial to both the teachers and the taught, these experiences are likely to be infrequently incorporated into CUREs. In order to further understand the potential affordances of museum education in the context of CUREs, we conducted an exploratory study examining the following questions:

1. What impact does engagement in a one-semester Pollinator CURE incorporating museum education have on students’ affective and psychosocial outcomes?

2. What perceptions do the CURE instructors and museum staff have regarding the exhibit development and installation process?

Consistent with prior research in the field (Milkova et al. 2013), we hypothesised that students would express positive perceptions of the experience as they utilised analysis, synthesis, and evaluation to meaningfully convey their discoveries. We likewise anticipated that the CURE instructors and museum staff would have positive perceptions of the exhibit (e.g. that it was a meaningful learning experience) as has been noted in other peer-reviewed publications on museum education and related stakeholder reactions (Baum et al. 2000; Camhi et al. 2013; Chi et al. 2015; Henry 2000; Latham 2016; Vandiver et al. 2008).

Methods

Course context

In Fall 2017, two instructors at The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) endeavoured to engage students in developing a museum exhibit for one of the rotating galleries at the UTEP Centennial Museum as the broader relevance component for a CURE focused on pollinators in the region (hereafter referred to as the Pollinator CURE). This course fulfilled the BIOL 1107 or BIOL 1108 introductory biology laboratory requirement for STEM majors at the institution and enrolled 13 students. Building upon the course theme, Chihuahuan Desert pollinators and other specimens found within the UTEP Biodiversity Collections were used as the focus of the museum exhibit because it would involve, at least in part, the introduction of important ecological concepts, especially local concerns, to students in the course. A detailed description of the CURE can be found in the course syllabus (Appendix A).

Relative to the traditional BIOL 1107 and BIOL 1108 laboratory curricula, which are comprised of independent weekly exercises aligned directly to the corresponding lecture courses and which focus predominantly on student mastery of scientific techniques, the Pollinator CURE engaged students in a semester-long experience in which they were given autonomy in identifying a researchable question/problem (e.g. characterising the diversity of native vs. non-native bee species on the UTEP campus) that could be explored using relevant tools (e.g. bowl trapping of bees) and analytical approaches. The experience culminated in the development of the museum exhibit described herein, rather than a final exam and research paper, as was the case in the traditional laboratory courses. Notably, the content covered in the Pollinator CURE was centred on the research interests of the instructors and had little, if any, relation to what was taught in the associated lecture courses. The CURE met twice weekly for three hours each session (i.e. six total hours of instruction per week), as dictated by university policy.

Museum exhibit development

As alluded to above, students assisted in developing, installing, and presenting a museum exhibition about pollinators in the Chihuahuan Desert. This was accomplished over a period of several weeks through collection and curation of biological specimens as well as utilisation of global biodiversity databases. In order to maximise the efficiency and fidelity of implementation of the museum exhibition, each student group was also assigned different roles (see Appendix A). Exhibit topics, which were co-generated by the CURE students and instructors, included:

• Differentiation between bees, flies, and wasps

• The need to learn more about native bees

• Native bee identification, incorporating which native bees might sting

• Native plants, including milkweed, that are good for native bees

• Citizen science activities using iNaturalist

• Biodiversity cataloguing and specimen availability for research

With these topics in mind, each student group produced an interactive piece (e.g. drawing a bee; using a microscope to see bee scopa as well as observe physical differences between bees, flies, and wasps) to implement within the allocated museum space. The pollinator exhibit was the first to use the space as a pop-up gallery.

Given that the scheduled weekly hours for the course were extensive, students were able to complete the majority of tasks associated with the development and installation of the museum exhibit without investing substantial (maximum one hour per week) out-of-class time. Throughout all stages of the process, the CURE instructors provided mentoring and coaching. Similarly, museum staff met with students to discuss best practices for museum exhibit design and assisted the CURE team with installation of the exhibition at the end of the semester. Specific weekly tasks and deliverables are described in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Overview of key activities and deliverables associated with the museum exhibition development and installation process.

Class Session^a	Session Activities	Session Deliverables
1 (13-Nov)	Pollinator CURE instructors provided an interactive lecture on the basics of museum exhibition development and installation. CURE students visited the UTEP Centennial Museum for the purposes of observing the layout of current exhibits and interacting with museum staff.	N/A
2 (15-Nov)	CURE students worked iteratively alongside the course instructors to identify the ‘big ideas’ that would serve as the framework for their exhibit. CURE students and instructors continued to discuss exhibition skills and their relevancy to the overarching exhibit development and installation process.	Submission of “Big Ideas” Assignment^b
3 (20-Nov)	With the assistance of the Pollinator CURE instructors, students began generating labels (e.g. signs; identification tags; specimen descriptions) for their exhibit. Pollinator CURE instructors discussed with students the importance of specimen safety.	Generation of Labels for the Museum Exhibition
4 (22-Nov)	Pollinator CURE instructors engaged students in an interactive discussion around exhibition evaluation. Pollinator CURE instructors prompted students to be reflexive regarding their own role in the exhibit development and installation process.	N/A
5 (27-Nov)	CURE students continued to develop the museum exhibition. This included finalising labels, constructing interactives, finalising preparation of all specimens, etc. Pollinator CURE instructors mentored students as they completed the above tasks. Museum staff were available for consultations, as needed.	Completed Construction of All Museum Exhibition Components
6 (29-Nov)
7 (04-Dec)	CURE students, instructors, and museum staff worked collaboratively to instal the exhibit.	N/A
8 (06-Dec)	The museum exhibit opened to the public. CURE students were available on opening night to interact with visitors and address their questions.	N/A

^aNote that the indicated dates correspond to the schedule posted in the course syllabus (Appendix A).

^bSee Appendix B for example assignment submissions.

CURE faculty/staff and student participant demographics

The faculty and staff (n = 4) that were involved with the Pollinator CURE included a postdoctoral fellow (instructor), Biodiversity Collections manager (instructor), museum director, and museum curator. Participants largely self-identified as white (75%), with an equal number of males and females represented in the sample. While these individuals had varied levels of college teaching experience (M = 14.5 semesters; SEM = 9.2 semesters) and were established professionals in their fields, this was the first instance in which they had all worked collaboratively to design and instal an exhibit in the UTEP Centennial Museum.

Student participants (n = 11; representing 85% of all eligible student participants enrolled in the CURE) predominantly self-identified as female (55%) and Hispanic (73%), with most (73%) majoring in the biological sciences. Furthermore, these individuals were primarily freshmen (82%) with no prior research experience (91% of participants), and none had completed prior coursework in museum collections or studies.

Involvement with the BIOL 1107/1108 Pollinator CURE was the sole criterion for inclusion in the study. This research was approved by The University of Texas at El Paso’s Institutional Review Board under protocols #789648 and #1717986.

Student survey procedures

At the beginning of the semester, students enrolled in the course were invited to complete the Pollinator CURE Questionnaire, a 22-item, Likert-style Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) survey (Seymour et al. 2000, March, March). This same survey was administered at the end of the semester along with three (3) open-ended questions about the students’ museum exhibit experience (Appendix C). To examine the face validity of the survey, J.T.O. distributed the questionnaire (both in person and via email) to both biology education graduate research students and faculty/staff in the university’s Research, Evaluation, and Assessment Services division (N = 4), who had the opportunity to provide written and/or oral feedback on the suitability and phrasing of each survey item based on their understanding of the item statement (Drost 2011). These individuals were not involved in the development of the survey and so offered an unbiased perspective that allowed for additional refinement of the questionnaire. Furthermore, these individuals, while all familiar with CURE evaluation practices, possessed various degrees of familiarity with museum/informal education. These attributes mirrored those of the anticipated respondent population, which we found to be imperative to our survey development efforts (Allen and Yen 2001).

Data collected from consenting participants (n = 11) were first blinded, and descriptive statistics were then tabulated for all Likert-item questions. Comparison of participants’ pre-/post-semester SALG responses was then performed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction. Open-ended responses were subsequently analysed by two individuals with expertise in biology education and/or environmental sciences (N.T.D. and J.T.O.) to establish interrater reliability. Iterative rounds of open and axial coding were performed to identify themes within the dataset, with disputes resolved through conversation between the coders (Elliott and Timulak 2021; Tesch 2013). Strong interrater reliability was observed (κ = 0.888; p < 0.001; 95% CI (0.808, 0.968)).

Semistructured interviews with CURE instructors and museum staff

A semistructured interview approach was adopted to elicit feedback from the CURE instructors, the UTEP Centennial Museum director, and the UTEP Centennial Museum curator about the museum exhibition development and implementation process. Specifically, this protocol included items pertaining to the perceived successes and failures associated with the museum exhibit component of the course, facilitator-level insights into the design process, and feedback for possible future iterations of a similar course incorporating museum education (Appendix D). A descriptive-interpretive approach was employed to identify emergent themes within this dataset (Elliott and Timulak 2021; Tesch 2013). All data were analysed by two individuals with expertise in biology education and/or environmental sciences (N.T.D. and J.T.O.) to establish interrater reliability. Iterative rounds of open and axial coding were performed, with disputes resolved through conversation between the coders. Strong interrater reliability was observed (κ = 0.912; p < 0.001; 95% CI (0.742, 1.00)). To maintain the anonymity and privacy of participants, each interviewee is referred to by a pseudonym throughout this article.

Results

Perceived relevancies and skills gained by students through engagement in museum education

Descriptive analysis of students’ pre-/post-semester Likert-item survey responses revealed, on average, positive shifts both in participants’ skills as they pertained to handling biological specimens as well as in engaging in the implementation and evaluation of museum exhibits (Table 2A and (Table 2A and Table 2B)Table 2B). Furthermore, students’ perceptions of the relevancy of scientific work and museum education to broad audiences, including the extent to which those audiences impact said relevancy, increased following participation in the CURE. Items for which there is a statistically significant pre-/post-semester shift in response are bolded in Table 2A and Table 2B. Collectively, these data suggest that biological sciences CUREs with embedded museum education can lead to improved student outcomes – particularly with respect to self-reported confidence – at least in contexts such as the one described here. In other words, this implies that broader relevance in biological sciences CUREs can potentially be achieved using museum pop-up spaces as the point of dissemination.

Table 2A. Students’ average pre- and post-semester level of agreement with affective survey items concerning scientific work and museum education.

Item Statement	Pre M (SEM)*	Post M (SEM)
Affective and Skills-based Items
1. Museum exhibits are important for educating the public about nature and the environment.	4.00 (0.27)	4.27 (0.19)
2. Participating in citizen science activities is important for my professional development.	4.00 (0.23)	4.36 (0.20)
3. I will use biological collections in my future profession.	3.91 (0.25)	3.73 (0.30)
4. I enjoy visiting museums.	4.09 (0.28)	4.27 (0.24)
5. I read the signs at museums.	3.91 (0.28)	4.00 (0.27)
6. It is important that my research is communicated to the broader scientific audience.	3.91 (0.21)	4.00 (0.23)
7. It is important that my research is communicated to the general public.	3.82 (0.23)	4.27 (0.14)
8. It is important that my research has direct relevance for informing future scientific investigations.	3.91 (0.25)	4.09 (0.16)
9. It is important that my research has direct relevance to the needs and interest of society.	3.73 (0.19)	3.82 (0.26)
10. Research questions should be guided by current societal needs.	3.09 (0.28)	3.36 (0.15)
11. Input from the scientific community is important when formulating a research question, interpreting results, and drawing conclusions.	4.09 (0.16)	4.18 (0.18)
Confidence Items
12. Iam confident in my ability to write labels for items displayed in amuseum.	3.00 (0.19)	4.09 (0.25)
13. Iam confident in my ability to assess the effectiveness of amuseum exhibit at communicating to the public.	3.09 (0.34)	4.09 (0.16)
14. Iam confident in my ability to handle biological specimens.	3.82 (0.23)	4.45 (0.16)

*Note that the survey scale ranges from strongly disagree (‘1’) to strongly agree (‘5’).

Table 2B. Students’ average perceptions of the relevancy of the indicated factors to diverse audiences.

Item Statement	Pre M (SEM)*	Post M (SEM)
Relevancy of Understanding Biological Collections for …
15. Biologists	4.82 (0.12)	4.82 (0.12)
16. All scientists	4.36 (0.24)	4.55 (0.16)
17. Educators	4.27 (0.24)	4.55 (0.16)
18. General public	3.91 (0.28)	4.09 (0.25)
Relevancy of Understanding the Contributions of Citizen Scientists for …
19. Biologists	4.45 (0.21)	4.64 (0.15)
20. All scientists	4.55 (0.21)	4.64 (0.15)
21. Educators	4.36 (0.20)	4.73 (0.14)
22. General public	4.18 (0.23)	4.73 (0.14)

*Note that the survey scale ranges from not important (‘1’) to very important (‘5’).

Student free-response data revealed benefits and challenges associated with the museum exhibition process

When asked about what they enjoyed most regarding the museum exhibition process, students primarily cited the planning and execution phases of the experience (82% of responses; Table 3). This was followed by autonomy and creativity (45% of responses), connecting research and museum education, and science-society connections; with these latter two themes reflecting equal response rates (n = 2; 18% of participants). Sample quotes illustrating these themes are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Student responses to the prompt: ‘What aspects of designing the museum exhibit did you find most enjoyable?’.

Theme: Planning and Execution of the Exhibit	No. of Responses (%)^a: 9 (82%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘Designing the exhibit is what I enjoyed the most. I enjoyed the planning part.’• ‘I enjoyed making the displays for the museum exhibit.’
Theme: Connecting Research and Museum Education	No. of Responses (%): 2 (18%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘The research! Learning about bees was a very enjoyable experience.’• ‘I enjoyed seeing how the research connected. … groups came together to create a cohesive exhibit.’
Theme: Autonomy and Creativity	No. of Responses (%): 5 (45%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘Most enjoyable: The fact that I have the power to educate students … ’• ‘I enjoyed the fact that we pretty much got to design the exhibit ourselves with very little interference.’
Theme: Science-Society Connections	No. of Responses (%): 2 (18%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘The fact that I [can] create a better environment in this world.’• ‘The elements that were the most enjoyable [were] creating a more people-friendly exhibit.’

^aN = 11; participant responses were coded into multiple categories, as appropriate.

Conversely, the least enjoyable aspects for students were a lack of time to execute the exhibit and transitioning from planning to implementation, with 27% of respondents citing each challenge (Table 4). Notably, the majority of students (n = 6; 55% of responses) did not mention any negative aspects of the experience.

Table 4. Student responses to the prompt: ‘What aspects of designing the museum exhibit did you find least enjoyable?’.

Theme: Lack of Time to Execute the Exhibit	No. of Responses (%)^a: 3 (27%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘I wish we had another few days or a week to create and set up.’• ‘Lack of time.’
Theme: Issues Pertaining to Student Groupwork	No. of Responses (%): 1 (9%)
Sample Student Response: • ‘ … working in [a] team with students that are not responsible as teammates.’
Theme: Transitioning from Planning to Installation	No. of Responses (%): 3 (27%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘ … having to make those ideas (ideas about the exhibit) come to life and be actual parts in the exhibit was challenging.’• ‘ … the “doing” part is very time consuming, so I didn’t enjoy [that] as much.’
Theme: Need for ‘Perfection’	No. of Responses (%): 1 (9%)
Sample Student Response: • ‘I enjoyed letting my creative juices flow, but I wanted everything to be “perfect”.’
Theme: No Response Provided	No. of Responses (%): 6 (55%)

^aN = 11; participant responses were coded into multiple categories, as appropriate.

Lastly, when asked if the museum exhibit changed their perspective about the nature of scientific research and how it is conducted, all students answered in the affirmative. More specifically, the majority of students (n = 6; 55% of responses) indicated that the experience helped them better recognise the complexities of research. Other themes included increased science communication skills as well as development of a better understanding of the research process and the relevancy of science to multiple audiences. The distributions of student responses for these themes and sample quotes for all identified themes are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Student responses to the prompt: ‘Did developing the museum exhibit change your perspective about the nature of scientific research and how it is conducted? Please explain your answer’.

Theme^a: Understanding the Research Process	No. of Responses (%)^b: 3 (27%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘I did not know how scientist[s] would do research; now I have a better understanding of it.’• ‘We took our data and findings and created an exhibit.’
Theme: Recognising the Complexities of Research	No. of Responses (%): 6 (55%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘Now I [see] all the small details and effort set forth by scientists/researchers. It makes me appreciate it a little more.’• ‘I thought not a lot of aspects go into research, but I found it tends to be more complicated, tedious, and detail-oriented.’
Theme: Science Communication	No. of Responses (%): 4 (36%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘I think we learned how to take scientific data and explain it to others.’• ‘It made me better appreciate the work that goes into displaying and sharing the results of a research [project].’
Theme: Relevancy of Science to Multiple Audiences	No. of Responses (%): 3 (27%)
Sample Student Responses: • ‘This exhibit had importance to scientists and the general public.’• ‘The process of getting scientific literature and then incorporating [sic] it to the public so [that it] can be simplified is interesting.’

^aPlease note that all participants (N = 11) agreed that the development process changed their perspective. Thus, these themes reflect the response patterns that emerged as a result of coding the explanations provided by participants.

^bParticipant responses were coded into multiple categories, as appropriate.

CURE instructor and museum staff perceptions of the exhibit development and enactment process

Five overarching themes were found during the course of the interview coding. These themes included sub-themes that coordinated with the overarching themes. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the sub-themes were addressed by all four (4) interviewees (Table 6). Most of the interview responses were positive in nature and often had similar vernacular. With that in mind, only a few example responses for each sub-theme will be given during the explanation of findings.

Table 6. Pollinator CURE faculty and museum staff perceptions of the exhibit development and enactment process.

Themes	Sub-Themes	Total Faculty and Staff (N = 4)	Biological Sciences Faculty and Staff (N = 2)	Museum Staff (N = 2)
1. Creating novel learning environments for students	a. Thinking outside of the box	4^a	2	2
	b. Making use of new spaces	4	2	2
2. Designing and installing the museum exhibit	a. Novice students as designers	4	2	2
	b. Interactive nature of the exhibit	3	1	2
3. Personal-/course-level benefits	a. Professional advancement	2	1	1
	b. Student gains in knowledge and skills	4	2	2
	c. Student gains in confidence and self-efficacy	2	1	1
	d. Building relationships	4	2	2
4. Campus-/community-level benefits	a. Engagement with science	4	2	2
	b. Public trust in museums	3	2	1
5. Challenges and/or modifications	a. Increased need for interaction between stakeholders	4	2	2
	b. Time and/or resource limitations	4	2	2
	c. Issues regarding student groupwork	4	2	2

^aNote that the value indicated in each cell represents the total number of participants in the given category whose responses included the specified sub-theme.

Theme 1: creating novel learning environments for students

Thinking outside of the box

Findings

Since this was the first iteration of a Pollinator CURE at the university, especially one that coordinated with a museum exhibit, there was a need to be creative in both planning and execution. Mikayla observed that producing a museum exhibit:

… gives students a new way to learn things and a new way to process information … it gives you a way to research and study and apply that information outside of your traditional essay. So, it’s a new way to look at the information.

Clark also explained that:

The outreach goal with the museum exhibit was to develop something that would be of interest to a general community. Not just a research presentation, like [a] poster of their (the students’) research, but something that would really introduce people to pollinators and native bees and their importance, including hands-on activities as much as possible. So, instead of just pictures and text on a wall, we really tried to push them (the students) into thinking creatively in terms of how to engage the public as part of that exhibit.

Making use of new spaces

Findings. Notably, this CURE was the first to make use of the pop-up space within the UTEP Centennial Museum, which had previously been structured as a gift shop and waiting area. This provided a unique opportunity for students to engage in broader relevance within a different venue than the more typical pursuits of public presentations and/or published scientific articles (Donegan et al.,Donegan et al., in review). Victoria’s excitement to incorporate this is shown in the following statement:

… because we had the opportunity to use a public space and the students could interact with visitors for part of what we did, and making the students think more in a 3D arena, right, instead of the 2D poster, they had the ability to create things that were interactive or that used physical objects.

Bruce echoed this sentiment by noting:

And so, having a space that we can do these pop-up exhibits, some shorter term, more spontaneous exhibits and that involve – the UTEP EDGE was big, right, so, getting high-impact learning for students and working with instructors and professors, so we were really seeing this as this opportunity to, hey, utilize the space but also bring in student work, work that’s relevant, that’s going on, that’s fresh, and they would just kind of pop up, be up for a couple months, and then we would move on to the next exhibit. And so, this was the first of that, and it really came out of conversations between Victoria and Mikayla.

Discussion and Interpretations. The Pollinator CURE afforded students an opportunity to not only communicate the learned information in a different way, but also to use museum space in a pop-up manner that had not occurred before. Collaborative efforts in museums can even reach global audiences if approached properly (Gillespie and Melber 2014). This implies that broader relevance in CUREs can be achieved on a small or large scale (i.e. one does not necessarily need a large exhibition space) when using a museum for presenting the research findings.

Theme 2: designing and installing the museum exhibit

Novice students as designers

Findings

Positive and negative perceptions regarding student-designed work were observed. One positive aspect cited by Mikayla was the potential to further the learning of novice students, as illustrated by the following quote:

And sometimes I have to remember and remind myself this – the students are not museum [education students]. They’re here to learn, and this is a tool for them to learn [from] me. Their end goal is not how pretty the exhibit looks. So, that’s something we need, I need to keep in mind. And that’s just my own thing because I’m [in] such a museum world, if you will. And we are at the Centennial, we’re here to help students to learn because we’re a part of the university. So, it’s just a new way, a new tool to learn. And sometimes the science fair project doesn’t look pretty. But as long as you learn, that’s the important thing.

Conversely, this learning curve was viewed negatively by other interviewees, as reflected in the following statement by Bruce:

And as I had said earlier, a lot of the students were freshmen or sophomores, kind of younger students in biology that weren’t at the level of knowledge of identifying and learning the Latin names and all that good stuff. So, I felt like those were the issues that I heard from Clark and Victoria (the CURE instructors) – were how to get everyone – you really need to get everyone on the same page or close to it as far as knowledge goes, and then you need everyone to be contributing equally.

Interactive nature of the exhibit

Findings

The student-designed exhibit included some creative components that, although required by the course instructors, collectively functioned well together. Bruce remembers:

It had these interactive components that made you wanna come in and look in the microscope and see the different species, right, that it had, well, you know, interactives in general. I think that a lot of our exhibits don’t have interactives.

Victoria explains that there was reasoning behind what became the exhibit layout:

I had a few criteria, like we wanna have some of the physical objects in there, and we want you (the students) to present your research and, most specifically, whatever question you had and what the answer was, but there weren’t a whole lot of constraints, and they (the students) were able to sort of think about, oh, well, can I build something that the visitor can come and spin around, or interact with, or listen to, which you can’t do with [a] poster. So, I think it was definitely a different experience from [a] poster or a presentation, even, because I feel like presentations are just a series of posters.

Discussion and Interpretations. A museum exhibit can be a good outlet for creative endeavours. However, it may be difficult to get students to channel their creativity when scientific research can be considered a more formal and structured undertaking (Wang 1984). This means that collaboration with a museum during a biological sciences CURE could be a positive or negative experience depending upon the students involved and their willingness to engage beyond their comfort zones. This, in turn, may be exacerbated by the level of experience students possess, both with regard to scientific topics being discussed as well as the process of designing and installing a museum exhibit (Bruer 1993; Dracup and Bryan-Brown 2004).

Theme 3: personal-/course-level benefits

Professional advancement

Findings

Some interviewees identified connections between participating in the CURE and their future professional growth. Clark noted, for instance, that:

… the benefit was it obviously got me stuck into the pollinator world. That’s where we started and then decided the next semester to continue doing things with the pollinator work. In that sense, it [was] a pretty big change [in] my pathway, because I don’t think I’d [now] be the curator of the botanical garden if I wasn’t doing bug surveys there and getting integrated into that piece. So, from that point of view, personally, it sort of was the first step in a beneficial path.

Bruce concurred by stating:

I think, like I said, as a whole, a great experience. I guess it is looking at it in retrospect but just kind of where we’ve come of hiring Clark and the relationship we have with … the biology department. I really see that as one of the foundations. That exhibit (the pollinator exhibit) really kind of set the tone and created strong bonds.

Student gains in knowledge and skills

Findings

All interviewees agreed that students learned from participating in the CURE and making a museum exhibit. Victoria explained:

So, I do think that most of them benefitted for many reasons. One is because I think during the semester as we were working through these research projects, I think a lot of the times they were sort of like, ‘I don’t really care about bees.’ They sort of felt ambivalent about the thing they were doing. But at the end, especially when the exhibit was open and they were there to answer questions of visitors, I think they suddenly found the why, right? Like, oh, I can see that I’ve just taught this middle schooler something interesting that they didn’t know before, and it felt like an accomplishment.

And also, I think a lot of them were sort of tentative about the idea of ‘why do I wanna do something in a museum? It seems boring.’ But once they started developing their exhibits, they got really creative. And so, I think it was interesting to see how that brought out their creativity when the research question part didn’t. And we wanted it to because that’s part of the research process, right, is thinking creatively about what’s going on here and why, and for many of them, they didn’t get to that until we were doing the museum exhibit.

Clark continued in the same vein by stating:

So, I think the students benefited because they got to really think about how to communicate what they learned. I think a lot of times it seems like a very one-way communication where the students are telling the instructor what they know, what they learned, and that’s the end of it. And it just seems like it doesn’t really matter because you’re telling the person who already knows what you learned and it’s like, ‘okay, well that was fun.’ But I think this way they’re able to really make their work and their communication more useful and have more of a real impact on people.

Student gains in confidence and self-efficacy

Findings. Along with knowledge gains, the students showed a level of certainty by being available on the opening night of the museum exhibit for any visitor questions. Mikayla observed:

I mean, in order for the students to have successfully answered questions, they had to know the information. So, I mean, I feel like if they’re there answering questions and I didn’t see too many riots, or too many of the angry professor looks, then I feel like the students knew their information or knew what they were, I guess, knew their area, and they were able to explain. And then, it also takes some skill to be able to translate that even further directly to the public. So, you have to translate not only a science issue that can be complex, 250 words. Then you’ve got to take that issue and make it [into] two sentences [for] the elevator speech when the public’s coming by. So, that does take skill as well.

Building relationships

Findings. Interactions with others outside of one’s comfort zone was discussed at length by all of the interviewees. Mikayla explained how these interactions can be wide-ranging because the museum often includes displays on different research subjects:

We’re here to showcase their work – a student, former staff, faculty. So, it’s always nice. And that’s what I like about working at a university museum, is I can have stuff on bees, or I can have stuff on– what else? Baseball, on El Paso. So, I mean, it’s really nice that we have this diversity here.

The CURE professors and students shared similar perceptions, as Victoria explained:

Well, it was super cool because I’ve never actually physically developed an exhibit, right? Most of my museum experience is in collections, so other than just my museum education where I took exhibit studies, I’ve never actually developed a real exhibit. And so, watching them (the students) have an idea but then try to actually make it happen, especially with limited resources, was super interesting, and I felt at the end when they were there presenting and I watched them interact with the younger students who came and some of the adults even, it was very satisfying to see that most of them actually knew what they were talking about, right?

So, part of developing this exhibit meant, oh, I’m gonna have to talk about this and people might ask me questions. I better know what I’m doing. So, it was a really great experience, I thought. It wasn’t perfect because, like I say, limited resources, right? Sometimes the idea that somebody had didn’t quite work out the way they had hoped or even we had hoped, but it was still really good.

Discussion and interpretations

Course-based undergraduate research experiences are noted for producing positive gains in students’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and self-efficacy (Brownell et al. 2017; D’Arcy et al. 2019; Esparza et al. 2020; Harrison et al. 2011; Lopatto 2007; Olimpo et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2022). The findings described above echo those positive gains. Furthermore, increases in rapport between students and faculty of CUREs can occur (Shortlidge et al. 2016). The current findings insinuate that there can even be increased rapport between faculty members, staff, and students when working alongside one another, even when those individuals possess different educational backgrounds and interests. In some cases, these relationships can lead to new professional pathways being pursued, as seen here.

Theme 4: campus-/community-level benefits

Engagement with science

Findings

Because museums are available to anyone that would like to enter, there is a unique opportunity to engage diverse audiences. Victoria explained just how much of an effect museums can have on patrons and students that are acting as docents during the opening night of the exhibit:

As far as the overall community, during our opening, we had teachers bring in some – I think they were middle school students, so it was great because our students were like the big college students. Even though they’re, most of them, first-semester freshmen, all of a sudden they were in a different status, right? They had these younger kids who were asking them lots of questions, and they could actually answer them. I think that was kind of empowering for most of the students to be able to do that.

Public trust in museums

Findings

Museums are also good for conveying information because the public tends to trust what information is relayed within the exhibits (Griffiths and King 2008; Tam 2011; Ulph 2016). Bruce described the Centennial Museum in this way, as follows:

And I would get anecdotal evidence – you know, informal feedback from people saying, ‘Wow, I feel like the door seems to be open at the Centennial museum,’ right? There’s this welcoming environment. And so, I feel like getting more students and more people into the museum and seeing it as a resource on campus.

Clark confirmed this sentiment with these words:

I think the museum exhibit is a good way to do that, because museums do typically get a lot of traffic. They’re one of the more trusted sources of information. When people do surveys of things that – museums and zoos and botanical gardens and art museums, all that stuff ranked pretty high. That stuff ranked pretty highly in terms of public trust and public interest, whether or not they actually visit that frequently or not. So, I think that’s a big benefit, and I hope that we’re able to do stuff like that in the future and use the museum for student activities, student information, student presentations.

Discussion and interpretations

Allowing the general public to experience science education from within a museum is important because it has the ability to bridge knowledge gaps and incite interest in science (Oppenheimer 1968). This Pollinator CURE museum installation and visitor experience, specifically, reaffirmed that museums are trusted venues that can increase knowledge through access to scientific topics (Griffiths and King 2008; Tam 2011; Ulph 2016). Museums can be remarkable outlets for broader relevance due to their level of accessibility and their applicability as a way for science students to think differently about how to explain and/or integrate concepts into an exhibit.

Theme 5: challenges and/or modifications

Increased need for interaction between stakeholders

Findings

In retrospect, there were some factors that interviewees felt could be modified if there was another CURE that culminated in a museum exhibit or if the course were repeated again. One important factor was better communication between the biology and museum faculties. Bruce observed on the museum side that:

Well, I feel like with this project especially, it was kind of packaged up until the end. So, I only saw [it] as they were installing it, right? And then, I just heard about it through Victoria afterwards, like I said kind of earlier, of having more involvement – because we see it now with the museum studies classes that we’ve been working with all semester so that we’re able to kind of intervene earlier if, okay, we’re not all on the same page about how to do this.

The perspective of a biology instructor was explained by Victoria, as follows:

As far as collaborating with the museum, it really wasn’t all that collaborative. It was just sort of they gave us a space to work in, and we worked in it. We didn’t really ask them to participate much in the process, partially because we felt like if we injected more people, it was just gonna create chaos. So, we did have Mikayla speak to the students about the space and what they could and couldn’t do and things like that, which was good, and they allowed us to come visit exhibits and do some critiquing, which was also good.

Time and/or resource limitations

Findings

There are often limiting factors to any course experience. Victoria explained issues with time:

So, I think if I would’ve had a little more time and could have given the students a little more instruction on exhibit practices and depending on what you’re trying to communicate what’s a better way to do it, that would’ve been helpful for sure.

Clark concurred and added:

I think building it as part of a CURE is interesting, although, like I said, I think it’s too ambitious unless you really rethink how you’re doing the work because you’re – especially [for] a freshman-level CURE like we were doing, you’re trying to teach them how to do science, how to collect data, how to think about the science, and then also how to communicate that science to a general audience and develop that form of communication and install it and everything.

Issues regarding student group work

Findings

CUREs are highly collaborative (Auchincloss et al. 2014; Esparza et al. 2020). However, the more people that are involved in a project, the more chance there is for some efforts to be less effective than others (as alluded to above by Victoria). Clark has noticed this in more than just this iteration of a CURE:

And then, we had a lot of the issues with group work. That is very common to CUREs where it’s not just ‘do this thing in class as a group, make sure you titrate or add chemical X to chemical Y and write down the results as a group’ and maybe turn in a group assignment. It really involved a lot more collaboration.

Bruce likewise noticed the difficulties regarding collaboration:

But I do remember them (the instructors) talking about kind of the pitfalls that they had experienced, and part of it was things that we deal with, I think, as teachers that – you know, group work, right? I mean, we’re always talking about group work. We’re trying to promote working in groups, but group work’s hard, right? And if someone isn’t pulling their weight, then it just ruins it for everyone.

Discussion and interpretations

As with any new endeavour, there were challenges. Modifications would be optimal if this CURE experience were to be replicated, as well. It has been said often that communication is key (Gulledge and Slobe 1990; Reback et al. 2002). This CURE experience is no exception. In light of the findings described above, it is recommended that CURE facilitators refer to existing resources on course and museum exhibit design (Carliner 2003; Cooper et al. 2017; Loparev et al. 2017) as well as collaboration and interpersonal communication techniques (Cheruvelil et al. 2020) in order to ensure that the joint efforts between all partners are effective in advancing desired research and pedagogical outcomes.

Discussion

Engagement in creating and implementing a museum exhibit had an overall positive impact on student outcomes within the context of the one-semester Pollinator CURE (Table 2A and Table 2B). Planning and execution were perceived to be the most enjoyable parts of the museum installation process (Table 3), while most of the students did not convey anything negative about the experience (Table 4), as measured via open-ended student responses. The small number of negative responses and high volume of positive responses show that integrating the museum exhibit as a capstone piece in the Pollinator CURE was a meaningful learning experience for the students.

The perceptions the CURE instructors and museum staff had regarding the exhibit development and installation process were also generally positive. Faculty and staff acknowledged student learning gains through the creation of novel learning environments for the students. The CURE instructors and museum staff recalled some challenges, as well, to the development of the CURE exhibit including limited stakeholder interactions, time and/or resource limitations, and issues with student group work (Table 6). Although these educators noted a negative side to integrating the museum exhibit into the Pollinator CURE, their conveyed recollection of positive experiences outweighed those negatives. This demonstrates that the use of a museum exhibition as the broader relevance component of the Pollinator CURE was viewed favourably by non-student designers as well, similar to previous studies in the field (Baum et al. 2000; Carliner 2003; Gillespie and Melber 2014; Loparev et al. 2017; Roussou et al. 2007, June, June).

A biological sciences CURE with a museum education component may be challenging to implement, in part, because it requires careful and extensive coordination between individuals in the biological sciences and museum education/studies to achieve the exhibit’s full potential. To address this need, we recommend that CURE facilitators and other invested stakeholders reference K-12 and STEM resources instead of relying solely on examples of collegiate-level integrations, of which there are few, with respect to CUREs (Baum et al. 2000; Camhi et al. 2013; Chi et al. 2015; Milkova et al. 2013; Oppenheimer 1968; Vandiver et al. 2008). This does not mean that museum education should be relegated solely to K-12 instruction. CURE facilitators merely need to be more flexible in procuring information that would allow them to effectively integrate museum education into their next CURE experience.

Although there are always challenges with any teaching endeavour, analysis of Pollinator CURE outcomes revealed that CURE students and faculty, as well as museum staff, had a positive experience overall. Students and faculty/staff concurred that designing the exhibit was the most memorable and positive part of the Pollinator CURE. Students felt they understood the complexities of research after completion of the CURE, and faculty were able to make use of an underutilised museum space in a novel way. This implies that the museum exhibition was largely successful at achieving the necessary broader relevance component of the Pollinator CURE.

Limitations and conclusions

We acknowledge that there are several limitations inherent of our study. First, the Pollinator CURE was only offered in the fall of 2017 at a single university for a single semester. There were no other similar or identical courses offered before or after at the institution due to instructional decisions made at the departmental level. Thus, comparison of the Pollinator CURE to other similar laboratory courses was not feasible, nor was it possible to iteratively collect data from the CURE across multiple semesters. While this was admittedly not the focus of the present study, which was intended to be largely exploratory in nature, it is worth noting here that the literature is now replete with empirical evidence documenting the affordances of CUREs relative to traditional laboratory curricula. Olimpo et al. (2016) demonstrate, for instance, that student engagement in the Tigriopus CURE results in more positive gains in content knowledge, attitudes, and motivations than does engagement in the traditional version of the laboratory course. More broadly, Rodenbusch et al. (2016), in their analysis of the University of Texas at Austin’s Freshman Research Initiative (FRI), revealed that undergraduates who completed the entire three-semester FRI sequence were significantly more likely to earn a STEM degree within six years of starting their programmes than were their non-FRI counterparts. Thus, we might predict that, had we been able to offer and evaluate outcomes of the Pollinator CURE in perpetuity, we would have had the potential to observe similar findings.

Relatedly, although the CURE student/faculty and museum staff participant response rate across all research procedures was high (88%), our sample size is small. While this is not uncommon of studies documenting student outcomes in CUREs (e.g. Peteroy-Kelly et al. 2017), we caution against overgeneralisation of the results presented herein. Future studies should be conducted to further explore the role of museum education in such contexts as well as other related areas of investigation (e.g. the impact of CUREs, such as the one described, on student academic outcomes).

As acknowledged in the interview data presented earlier in this text, the likelihood of encountering practical constraints (e.g. limitations on time and resources) while designing and installing the museum exhibition is high. This was especially true in our context, where the CURE was only one semester in duration. If this course were to be offered again in the future, the CURE instructors anecdotally suggested to N.T.D. and J.T.O. that a two-semester sequence would be ideal, where the focus of the first semester would be pollinator research and the second the translation of that research to a museum exhibit. While all research- and pedagogically-based course objectives were achieved during the term in which the Pollinator CURE was implemented, expanding the CURE to be a year-long experience would arguably have afforded the instructional team greater time to establish collaborations with the museum staff (leading to the production of a higher-quality exhibit) as well as the opportunity to more deeply engage students in the research process. We contend that this latter benefit may directly or indirectly influence students’ perceptions of the importance of their projects (e.g. altering potential negative attitudes towards bees, as cited in the interview data presented herein, to more positive attitudes).

We recognise that having the ability to expand a CURE of this nature into a multi-semester experience is a privilege not available to all instructors. Thus, we feel it is critical to re-emphasise the need for careful planning of the museum exhibition component of one’s CURE, regardless of its length. Many resources exist to facilitate this need. For instance, the Smithsonian has published a brief (15-page) guide to exhibit development, which can be located at http://exhibits.si.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Guide-to-Exhibit-Development.pdf. This document contains information regarding the role(s) of all exhibit development team members, the types of content that could be included in an exhibit, ‘tips and tricks’ for creating that content, and suggestions regarding messaging (e.g. big ideas vs. key messages). CURE instructors might assign this as required reading for students in their course and, subsequently, devote class time to unpacking the guide alongside museum partners.

Despite these limitations and potential constraints, the outcomes generated from this study provide critical insights into the benefits and barriers associated with integrating museum education into biological sciences CUREs. Importantly, these findings were not only informed by the perspectives of the CURE students and instructors, but also the museum staff involved in the exhibit creation and installation process. Collectively, these outcomes offer a significant first step in identifying strategies for incorporating new and exciting options for broader relevance into CUREs.

Declarations and ethics statements

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest to report. This research was approved by The University of Texas at El Paso’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) under protocols #789648 and #1717986. Only those data obtained from consenting participants are included in this article. Due to the provisions of the IRB protocol, data are only available upon request.

Acknowledgments

We wish to the thank the CURE instructors, CURE students, and museum staff for their participation in this research. We would also like to thank Vanessa Lougheed and Peter Golding for their thoughtful feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).