Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) for non-science majors (nonmajors) are potentially distinct from CUREs for developing scientists in their goals, learning objectives, and assessment strategies. While national calls to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education have led to an increase in research revealing the positive effects of CUREs for science majors, less work has specifically examined whether nonmajors are impacted in the same way. To address this gap in our understanding, a working group focused on nonmajors CUREs was convened to discuss the following questions: 1) What are our laboratory-learning goals for nonmajors? 2) What are our research priorities to determine best practices for nonmajors CUREs? 3) How can we collaborate to define and disseminate best practices for nonmajors in CUREs? We defined three broad student outcomes of prime importance to the nonmajors CURE: improvement of scientific literacy skills, proscience attitudes, and evidence-based decision making. We evaluated the state of knowledge of best practices for nonmajors, and identified research priorities for the future. The report that follows is a summary of the conclusions and future directions from our discussion.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2017.
All research outputs
#12,242,007
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from CBELife Sciences Education
#601
of 1,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,819
of 364,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CBELife Sciences Education
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,242 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
