From Student to Researcher (in one term!) Post 19: Q&A

(This blog series is authored by USask denizens Harold Bull, Dawn Giesbrecht and Sheryl Mills) Harold is Assistant Professor Biochemistry, Microbiology & Immunology. Dawn is Laboratory Instructor Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology; Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immunology. Sheryl is Associate Director, Academic Programs & Interprofessional Education)

People who have read our CURE blog post series have sent in a couple of questions asking for additional details. We attempt here to provide those details!

Q1

How do you ‘stage’ your course? i.e. how exactly do you set it up?

A1

You can access our course syllabus here.

But in case you want a “walk through”…

To start, we followed the model used by David Oliver for his course at the University of British Columbia. Harold and David both offer microbiology courses and have an interest/history in basic molecular biology.

Our USask BMIS 380 course is composed of two projects.

The first (three week) project is instructor-directed and involves skills/activities learners have had experience with and may have performed in previous labs. The learners do (1) plasmid purification from E. coli, (2) quantify the DNA, and then (3) transform their plasmid DNA into a new recipient strain.

Learners work in teams of up to four members. Because they choose their own teams, an icebreaker activity provides the opportunity for learners get to know each other so they can make more informed choices about potential teammates. As further support we initiate an attempt to jumpstart metacognition by inviting our resident expert(s) (i.e. Dr. S. Mills). Dr. Mills focuses learner attention (once we get her focused…!) on three main areas: teamwork, professionalism, and the Research Skills Development Framework reflection. Bringing in a ‘third party’ as an ‘expert’ gave added weight to these components and provided a dedicated time for reflection, at the beginning, middle, and end of the course.[1]

The key to the first project is that, although we provide instruction in where to find possible protocols, we do not dictate which protocols will be used. Learners are provided with a list of the key information required. The teams’ final reports for project 1 must include the following elements:

• procedures used (and why)
• plasmid yield (and purity)
• transformation efficiency

A notable turning point in the course—and the learners and in the instructors’ role—occurs when learners start taking ownership of their experiments and instructors stop directing and start coaching. It is at this point that learners begin preparing reagents, finding the right chemicals, finding the right test tubes, deciding which incubator and temperature to use, choosing what drugs to add to their media, what concentration to add to their media, and how to prepare those drugs in the first place… and every other little decision to successfully complete Project 1[2]. This transformation is simply amazing and rewarding to observe in the learners and experience as an instructor.

We have found that the key is to let teams make mistakes—as uncomfortable as that seems at first—and then to provide space so they can discover their mistake (also equally uncomfortable for all), realize it is their responsibility to resiliently recalibrate, retry, and retest using their own solutions (yes, we were going for alliteration). The instructor role during Project 1 evolves from traditional “deliverer of instructions” to facilitator, coaching learners to think through possible solutions.

The remainder of the term (approximately 10 weeks) is used for Project 2 which is a learner-directed team project. The process for laying the foundation for Project 2 and guiding teams through their research projects is covered in A2 below.

Q2

Do you let students go completely “off the ranch” or do you propose some sorts of limitations like “develop some sort of bacterial biosensor” or “come up with an improved detection method for species X”? Can you provide examples of “topic boundaries” you use in your CURE course?

A2

The perimeter fencing, or determining the ‘scope’ is a big one for this type of course. Too big a project is discouraging, too little is not engaging enough.

Being in a biochemistry, microbiology, and immunology department, we encourage teams to develop projects in areas of: molecular microbiology, antimicrobial activities of “student-chosen compounds/materials”, projects that build on research initiated in previous years, etc. Definite “no’s” are only arrived at after teams have a chance to work through and analyze their proposed ideas. Vetting proposals for feasibility is a team-driven process (with facilitation) as outlined below.

Concurrent to Project 1, learners individually submit one page proposals for Project 2. The one pager must have sufficient information to convey the project, but doesn’t require explicit details. We think of this as a “pitch”. We encourage learners to suggest and develop their own questions/ ideas.[3] Additionally we provide some ‘off the shelf’ ideas[4]. Much to our surprise and delight, learner colleagues often provide much broader and more-exciting questions than our off the shelf ideas, around antibiotic resistance, microbiome effects on human metabolism, etc.

Each team then discusses the individual pitches during a weekly meeting with the course instructors[5]. Proposals often start out overly ambitious and/or unfocussed. This is where coaching comes in. We facilitate the scoping process by asking key questions[6] and leaving space for learners to provide/find answers. Even though the starting ideas may not be completely logical or feasible, they often serve as a stepping stone on the way to an idea that can be pursued within the scope of the course—from the perspectives of an appropriate topic, the time available, and possible budget[7] constraints.

We ask questions about the overall feasibility, the scope, the logic etc. of the individual pitches to help learners collectively get a sense for what is doable. The end goal of this process is to have learners come up with full (submitted and graded) proposals that are logical, reasonable, relevant, and manageable.

After hearing the pitches, teams are free to choose which ideas they want to pursue. This is where facilitator self-regulation is severely tested. We do not dictate any project ideas. We let teams ‘run with it’ (within the range boundaries)… even when we can see they are heading for a clear dead-end (or as we like to say, a ‘learning opportunity’).

At this point we help teams frame their research questions and experimental designs[8].  To guide this part of the process we ask them questions like...

On the science side:

• What is the underlying question you want to address?
• What approaches are appropriate to find an answer to that question?
• What methods could be used? How many repeats would be needed to have valid results?
• What controls should be included?

On the project management side (transferable professional skills):

• What are the team member roles and responsibilities i.e. who does what, and when?
• What is the overall project timeline? What must happen first, then second etc?[9]^,[10]
• What are the major milestones and deliverables? What is a reasonable stopping point if things go awry?
• What is the required budget? What needs to be ordered? How long will that take to arrive?

Once teams have defined their project, they submit a detailed research proposal. Each proposal must include a detailed explanation of the hypothesis to be tested, why is the topic appropriate and of interest, the proposed order of experiments, what protocols/methods they will specifically use to test/do each step, what materials they will require, and a budget[11] for each item that is not readily available in the lab.  Each proposal is reviewed by a team of anonymous reviewers (well, not really anonymous – course instructors do this) and specific feedback is provided for each aspect of their proposal along with their grade.

Occasionally, teams select a project idea and go through the process of developing a proposal as outlined above, only to realize their chosen project is not feasible[12]. When this happens (more commonly than one might think) teams either go back to examine other pitch ideas in more detail or pursue yet another avenue (aka – a different idea).

As an instructor, on your first run through a CURE, this initial planning process may seem like it is not yielding immediate ‘products’, such as research articles or lab reports. Rest assured that this is when teams are learning a great deal about experimental design, project management, and teamwork.

An important note regarding overall scope. We are okay with teams initially proposing a project that won’t fit within the time available. Learners soon realize on their own what is ‘too much’. At that point our coaching conversations become more focused on ‘where is a logical stopping point along this project’ and teams then modify their focus to the new finish line. Learning to recognize that projects (goals) can be too large to complete in one ‘cycle’ and often need to be subdivided into smaller, discrete and sequential entities[13] are valuable and transferable skills. Given that our goal is to cultivate researchers, not necessarily generate ‘research articles’, we are very comfortable with this scenario.

The larger project ideas are analogous to M.Sc. projects. With the CURE model, students in subsequent years can build on results from earlier teams – these become ‘legacy’ projects that can cover the same ground as M.Sc. theses – but with different teams doing sequential chapters.

Feel free to contact any of us (Harold Bull, Dawn Giesbrecht, Sheryl Mills) with your questions if we haven’t covered them here[14]!

View all posts in this series

View the previous post in this series. View the next post in this series. 

We also have podcasts! 

Notes are below! 

[1] Because the science is so engaging learners just want to keep ‘doing the science’. We found it is crucial to provide reflection as a ‘protected’ aspect of the course i.e. not negotiable—even when you initially see eyes rolling  at the mention of “doing reflection” this very quickly turns around as learners experience the value of metacognition. 🙄à🤔à😁

[2] Notably, the more decisions each team makes together, the stronger the team and the confidence level in those decisions and each other.

[3] We have been very pleasantly surprised at the breadth of learner ideas.

[4] But where in the heck did we get those ideas from? For example, I have provided transcriptional-reporter project ideas to look at gene regulation of a few E. coli based systems. So far we have pulled project ideas from my own and colleagues research threads that were left hanging due to lack of funding, or their tangential nature.

[5] On our ‘instructor team’ we currently have two discipline trained faculty and a lab coordinator. Additionally we have invited guests and an assigned graduate student T.A.

[6] When discussing learner ideas, just remember to take a deep breath, and explore with them where they are hoping to go with their idea.

[7] It has been our experience that learners have not had an opportunity to think about budget in their university courses and this can be a real eye opener. And is a transferable skill to future research projects—and to life.

[8] During this process we coach teams in experimental design, protocol(s) they could use, and most importantly – exploring how long each ‘step’ will realistically take given the hours the lab is open to them, days they are available to work on the project, etc.

[9] i.e. if they need to create a specific clone to test something in multiple genetic backgrounds, creation of the clone must occur first.

[10] We have found that introduction of Gantt Charts to be useful for teams to understand the concept of project management.

[11] We allow a budget of up to $500.00 per team beyond what is ‘in stock’ – teams seldom use all of that.

[12] Often this is very apparent when they read the reviewer comments on their proposal.

[13] Think individual research articles on a wider topic, steps in a process etc.

[14] …or in the previous 18 blog posts in this series 😉