Alise J. Ponsero1,2,3,4*
Bonnie L. Hurwitz2,3,5,6*- 1Core Bioinformatics, Quadram Institute, Norwich, United Kingdom
- 2Department of Biosystems Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States
- 3Bio5 Institute, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, United States
- 4Department of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- 5NC State University Bioinformatics Research Center, Raleigh, NC, United States
- 6Department of Biological Sciences, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, United States
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have rapidly become essential components in STEM education. However, there is limited guidance for implementing these classes in fully asynchronous online formats. We discuss the design and implementation of our 15-week asynchronous online CURE focused on open science literacy and bioinformatics. Twenty to thirty first-year undergraduate students per semester conducted a collaborative research project evaluating the long-term availability of biological databases, contributing to a publicly accessible dataset released online and built upon every year. We focus on introducing scientific methodology and encouraging critical thinking over teaching technical skills, exposing students to contemporary scientific controversies including research misconduct, reproducibility challenges, and open science practices. We found that our key strategies for successful asynchronous implementation included: (1) front-loaded course development with comprehensive video tutorials and detailed protocols; (2) flexible assignment deadlines emphasizing collaborative responsibility rather than rigid enforcement; and (3) multiple feedback touchpoints through anonymous questionnaires and continuous communication channels. We believe that CURE experiences can be successfully adapted to distributed learning environments while maintaining student engagement, fostering scientific literacy, and accommodating diverse student schedules and commitments.
1 Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the need for online learning modalities in higher education, ushering in rapid online adaptation of courses previously designed for face-to-face delivery. While emergency remote teaching provided temporary solutions, the experience highlighted both the potential and limitations of online STEM education, in particular affecting the student engagement and motivation (Minichiello et al., 2022). As institutions continue to embrace flexible learning formats to accommodate diverse student populations, including working students, caregivers, and those with geographic or scheduling constraints, the need for well-designed online research experiences has become increasingly apparent.
In recent years, course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have emerged as essential components of undergraduate STEM education, providing students with opportunities to engage in authentic research while developing their critical thinking and scientific reasoning skills (Wei and Woodin, 2011; Auchincloss et al., 2014; Corwin et al., 2015; Rodenbusch et al., 2016). Importantly, implementing CUREs in online environments presents unique pedagogical challenges that extend beyond transforming face-to-face classes into online videos. CUREs are unique in that they require maintaining research authenticity, fostering collaborative learning, and ensuring rigorous scientific outcomes. This becomes significantly more complex when students work independently and asynchronously, without the possibility of having a face-to-face mentorship experience (Onah et al., 2014).
Despite this growing need, published CURE literature focuses on traditional in-person implementations or synchronous online formats that require real-time interaction. Limited guidance exists for educators seeking to develop fully asynchronous research experiences that maintain the collaborative, discovery-oriented, and methodologically rigorous characteristics that define effective CUREs. While some successful asynchronous implementations have been reported, such as computational genomics CUREs (Plaisier et al., 2024) or in ecology and environmental sciences (Fey et al., 2020), frameworks for developing asynchronous CURE remain limited.
The “Biosystems Analytics & Technology using the CURE Approach” course (BAT102) was implemented as an asynchronous online experience, and centered around a research project on open science and FAIR data principles in biology. Importantly, education have been identified along with better incentives, as a key to promote better scientific practices and to address the “reproducibility crisis” (Munafò et al., 2017; Button et al., 2020). This CURE research project was built upon and expanded on a previously published survey of biological databases, which examined the long-term sustainability of databases published in the Nucleic Acids Research Database issue (Imker, 2018). During the CURE, students surveyed newly published resources and evaluated the continued availability of previously documented databases. The project directly engaged students with the question of scientific collaboration and resource sustainability in open sciences, and culminated in the release of the up-to-date dataset as an online web-resource (accessible through1) and as a Zenodo archive.2
The course followed a 15-week semester structure with weekly content modules and assignments. Each week focused on a specific open science topic while progressing through research milestones in parallel. The course leveraged several integrated technology platforms, particularly the University of Arizona Learning Management System (Desire2Learn platform), which served as the central hub for organizing class content. Additionally, GitHub was used to provide students with a lab notebook system, utilizing GitHub wiki entries and version control for the research data collected by each student.
Our course evolved from an initial pilot with 4 students during the COVID-19 pandemic to a full implementation with 20–30 students per semester and was designed for first-year undergraduate students. While most published CUREs focus on upper-level courses, there is growing evidence that introductory CUREs offer distinct pedagogical advantages. Introductory courses can influence students’ educational and career trajectories, while upper-level implementations primarily help students confirm pre-existing research interests (Bangera and Brownell, 2014). Other authors suggest that undergraduate research experiences during the first 2 years influence effectively science identity, self-efficacy, persistence, and likelihood of pursuing graduate education (Rodenbusch et al., 2016; Rodrigo-Peiris et al., 2018), and that CUREs are generally most effective for beneficial for students with lower level of preparedness (Nadelson et al., 2010; Brownell and Kloser, 2015). Additionally, mandatory introductory CUREs address equity concerns that upper-level implementations cannot since upper-level elective CUREs face similar barriers as traditional research internships (Bangera and Brownell, 2014). Finally, our specific learning objectives (introducing open science principles and establishing transparent research documentation practices) required a first-year implementation to be most efficient. Students were forming their initial research habits and professional identities, so we believe this to be the optimal time to introduce good practice of using a lab notebook and discuss transparent documentation standards that they could carry throughout their academic careers. The asynchronous format made the course accessible to students with diverse schedules and commitments, including non-traditional students and those with limited availability for synchronous activities.
Here, we discuss practical insights for educators seeking to implement authentic research experiences in fully asynchronous formats, addressing challenges ranging from maintaining research quality to fostering a student community without synchronous interaction. We present the key strategies that we found particularly valuable in a distributed learning environment. We believe that our experience in teaching a CURE focusing on scientific methodology and open science principles, rather than technical skills alone, could be relevant to anyone interested in creating transferable learning outcomes while accommodating diverse student schedules and commitments.
2 Pedagogical philosophy: scientific methodology over technical skills
Our CURE class deliberately focused on scientific methodology and introducing important concepts related to open science, rather than teaching technical skills. Indeed, while technical skills can be effectively taught through traditional laboratory courses, CUREs offer a unique opportunity to teach through practice. The authentic research experience that defines a CURE course allows students to put scientific methods into their context and helps them develop their ability to perform collaborative work with peers and supervisors.
The course followed a logical, progressive exploration of open science challenges and applications in biological research (Figure 1):
• Foundations (Weeks 1–4): The course begins by introducing the challenges surrounding science reproducibility, exposing students to the “reproducibility crisis” debate. This establishes the context for the need for open science practices, which are then introduced as an overview. This period is a time when students reflect on the causes and impacts of research misconduct, explore key resources such as PubPeer, and understand the mechanisms for integrity investigations on campus.
• Applications of Open Science (Weeks 5–9): Students then explore more specific domain applications of open science practices in biology and bioinformatics. A particular emphasis is given to open research data (including FAIR principles) as the concepts are critical for their own research work in the class. Students have the opportunity to discuss and understand the debate surrounding open publication and the scientific peer review system.
• Open Science and Open Communication (Weeks 10–15): The class concludes by highlighting the importance of open communication in scientific research practices. We discuss citizen science projects, science outreach, and their place in open science practices. This is directly linked to their final written and oral communication tasks, which were also performed during the same period.
Figure 1. Course overview the semester was divided into three main sections: (1) Week 1–4: An introduction to open science and the data reproducibility challenge. Students collected, verified, and cross-checked the availability of scientific databases to contribute to the “Data Science Heroes” database. (2) Week 5–9: FAIR data principles and open software development. Students explored FAIR data principles and analyzed trends such as database creation versus discontinuation, and patterns linking authorship to database longevity. (3) Week 10–15: The importance of scientific communication. Students learned science communication skills through individual written reports and oral presentations of their research.
This approach reflects a common practice for teaching open science: contextualizing practices within contemporary scientific challenges helps students understand why these practices matter before learning technical implementation (Pennington, 2023). Our class organization more generally aligns with the problem-based learning principles, which suggests that presenting authentic, real-world problems before technical solutions increases student motivation and engagement by establishing relevance (Savery, 2019; Marra et al., 2014; Hmelo-Silver, 2004). By first exposing students to high-profile cases of research misconduct, reproducibility failures, and ongoing scientific debates, we aimed to provide a meaningful context that motivated an engagement with open science practices.
Rather than relying on traditional written assignments, we asked students to engage with the weekly topics using diverse communication formats, including blog posts, mock social media posts, podcast recordings, and graphical abstracts. This choice of providing students with choice in assessment format aimed to support autonomy and enhance the student motivation and engagement (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Patall et al., 2010; Cullen and Oppenheimer, 2024). We think that this approach proved particularly valuable in our asynchronous format, where traditional motivational structures such as in-person interaction were absent. Additionally, modern science communication requires the use of multiple media platforms and audience types (Brownell and Kloser, 2015; Mercer-Mapstone and Kuchel, 2017). By practicing communication in varied formats, from brief social media posts to longer podcast scripts, we aimed for the students to understand how to adapt the scientific content to different contexts, while creating a safe space for experimentation supporting them in developing their communication voice without the pressure of large external audiences.
It was essential for us to expose students to current scientific controversies and the complexities of scientific public discussions rather than relying on a simplified textbook view of scientific methodology. Students explored and discussed high-profile cases of research misconduct, including the Diederik Stapel fraud case, emerging concerns about the use of generative AI in the biological sciences, and ongoing debates about research transparency and reproducibility. We used an extensive array of video essays, generalist press coverage, and social media discussions to provide entry points into complex debates. Prior reports show that high school and first-year students can effectively develop higher-order thinking skills, including critical analysis, ethical reasoning, and scientific argumentation, when provided with structured learning environments and explicit instruction (Chowning et al., 2012; Yacobucci, 2013; Howitt and Wilson, 2018). Rather than requiring advanced domain knowledge, critical thinking about scientific methodology and research practices can be developed through engagement with authentic, accessible cases. Our approach using high-profile cases of research misconduct, reproducibility challenges, and open science debates, provided authentic contexts for developing these skills without presupposing technical expertise.
Our course aimed to develop scientifically literate citizens who could engage critically with scientific information regardless of their eventual career paths. We recognize that a significant proportion of our undergraduate students may not pursue careers as scientists; however, they will still be exposed to scientific controversies and debates. Understanding how science works, particularly its limitations and biases, is a critical skill for everyone navigating an increasingly science-dependent society. The positive student reception of our approach, evidenced by sustained engagement and absence of negative feedback on the methodology-focused content of our course, suggests that undergraduate students are both capable of and interested in engaging with sophisticated discussions about scientific practice.
3 Challenges and strategies for asynchronous implementation
Implementing an asynchronous CURE class presented specific challenges due to the absence of direct contact with the students. Here, we present our observations and strategies to support continuous student engagement and consistency, while also building a sense of community in the asynchronous setting.
3.1 Balancing flexibility with research project deadlines
The asynchronous format of our class provided students with the flexibility to follow the class at their own pace but created additional challenges in organizing and coordinating a collaborative research project. Unlike individual assignments where deadlines primarily serve accountability purposes, the sequential and interdependent nature of our CURE project (data collection, validation, harmonization, and analysis) required a good coordination to ensure that students’ contributions aligned temporally. In our opinion, clear communication around these challenges provided a good strategy to alleviate this challenge. Rather than rigidly enforcing deadlines, we emphasized the collaborative implications of timing to help students understand how their delays affected peer work and overall project progress. We believe that this approach appeals to students’ sense of responsibility while maintaining a supportive learning environment and has been previously shown to support both learner autonomy and collaborative outcomes in asynchronous settings (Chiu et al., 2024; Hoffman et al., 2023).
Throughout the semester, the weekly assignment structure served the dual purpose of maintaining regular student engagement and providing early warning signs for students in need of support. We actively monitored our students’ assignment submissions and consistently followed up with them after any missed deadlines. Importantly, our approach emphasized communication over punishment, and any student who missed a deadline received an immediate message asking if they needed additional support or guidance, and we chose not to enforce any kind of late-submission penalty. This supportive approach has been reported as effective in maintaining student engagement and wellbeing (Kennette and Rivers, 2024; Hajshirmohammadi, 2023). In our experience, students who fell behind typically caught up within 1–2 weeks when provided with clear expectations and additional support sessions. We found this approach to be effective in supporting students experiencing temporary overwhelm and preventing them from falling into long-term disengagement with the class. Critically, prior reports suggested that this approach can address equity barriers, as requiring students to individually request extensions disadvantages students who may not recognize extensions as possible (Hills and Peacock, 2022), and building flexibility into course structure helps with equitable access. We also implemented a possibility of work resubmission after instructor feedback without penalties from students who desired to improve their grades. Other works suggests that the opportunity to revise and correct work without grade penalties, shifts the focus from performance to actual learning (Tila and Levy, 2024; Clark and Talbert, 2023) and particularly benefits students who initially struggle in the classroom (Tripp et al., 2025). In our class, we provided a time window for revision rather than unlimited flexibility, to maintain reasonable submission patterns while reducing stress and supporting diverse student circumstances.
3.2 Ensuring clear student-instructor communication by enforcing high documentation standards
Maintaining a high standard of research for students working independently required us to pay attention to our documentation standards and establish peer review mechanisms. The lack of real-time instructor access meant that protocols needed to be more comprehensive than in traditional face-to-face courses. We provided students with detailed step-by-step protocols, both as video tutorials and written transcripts to ensure consistency across the students. The evaluation grid for each assignment was made accessible and clearly explained to clarify expectations.
The students were asked to use GitHub wikis as lab notebooks and were instructed on the type of information they were expected to capture. The lab notebooks provided transparency, allowing students to understand their importance in open science, while also enabling us to monitor the progress and quality of their work. Each research assignment grade was accompanied by detailed feedback on their lab notebook entries, to reinforce the importance of documentation and provide opportunities for work resubmission. By this, we aimed to encourage students to maintain high standards of documentation even when working independently.
The research project included a peer evaluation component, where students reviewed and harmonized each other’s data collection efforts. We found that this step served multiple purposes: quality control of the data collected, community building, and methodological learning. The goal was for students to reflect on their own research practice while contributing to overall project quality. However, this exercise required careful guidance to ensure constructive rather than superficial peer review. Providing specific evaluation criteria and examples of high-quality feedback was crucial for effective peer assessment.
After the end of each semester, we assessed the global quality of research output produced by the student by manually curating and correcting the data collected during each semester before online public release of the datasets. During this quality control process, instructors evaluated each database entry against established criteria: correct identification and extraction of the database metadata (e.g., name, acronym, URL…) and accurate classification of the database availability status. This manual quality assessment of the student-generated dataset revealed an average 70% accuracy, a good achievement for first-year students conducting independent research. Clear documentation and step-by-step tutorials enabled this CURE class to produce research outputs of high global quality for undergraduate work. Critically, after manual curation, we evaluated the final dataset to be sufficiently rigorous for public release on Zenodo with a DOI assignment.
3.3 Building a sense of community
Creating a sense of shared research purpose in an asynchronous environment necessitated the implementation of several intentional community-building strategies. Indeed, prior works show that asynchronous online courses require deliberate efforts to prevent student isolation and foster engagement (Martin and Bolliger, 2018; Glazier, 2021). This was particularly critical as CUREs specifically benefit from collaborative structures that build a sense of belonging and scientific identity (Malotky et al., 2020; Linton et al., 2025; Mraz-Craig et al., 2018). Indeed, collaboration and shared research goals are key predictors of student motivation in CUREs, and help students develop their science identity (Werth et al., 2022; Buchanan and Fisher, 2022). We facilitate forum discussions among students on the class’s weekly topic, providing them with opportunities for intellectual exchange. Additionally, the shared research project created interdependencies among students, allowing them to see how their individual contributions fit into the larger “Data Science Heroes” dataset, thereby providing meaningful context for their work.
To ensure students remained comfortable with the asynchronous model and to continuously improve our implementation, we administered anonymous questionnaires at three key points during the semester: the beginning, mid-semester, and the end of the course. These surveys, developed specifically for course quality assurance rather than as validated research measures, assessed whether students felt at ease with the course’s asynchronous format, whether they were spending the expected amount of time on assignments, and provided opportunities for feedback on course materials and structure (Figure 2). Additionally, for specific research tasks, we asked students to evaluate the clarity and usefulness of our tutorials and documentation, encouraging them to provide suggestions for improvement that could benefit future cohorts. This feedback mechanism served a dual purpose: it allowed us to monitor student well-being and engagement in real-time, while also ensuring that students contributed to the course’s evolution and helped future peers succeed.
Figure 2. Student feedback mechanisms: The feedback framework used in the CURE class included three anonymous questionnaires administered at key timepoints (start, mid-semester, and end of course) to assess student comfort with the asynchronous format, time investment, content difficulty, and suggestions for improvement. Additional continuous feedback mechanisms included tutorial-specific evaluations, assignment difficulty assessments through the tracking of late submissions, and open communication channels through office hours and direct contact.
3.4 Faculty workload and sustainability considerations
Managing 20–30 students in an asynchronous CURE required strategic approaches to protect the instructors’ time and energy during the semester. While rarely discussed in CURE literature, instruction time protection strategies are often needed to ensure the class quality and long-term sustainability (Heim and Holt, 2019; Govindan et al., 2020). We found that the most intensive periods corresponded to research milestone evaluations and lab notebook feedback, when individual attention to student work was crucial for maintaining quality and providing learning support. In our experience, the most efficient feedback strategies included providing students with prepared examples of what is expected, along with detailed written comments, which helped us manage our workload while providing meaningful guidance.
The front-loaded nature of our course preparation proved beneficial for the class’s sustainability. Once the video content, protocols, and assessment materials were developed, the course could run with minimal real-time content creation. This enabled us to remain responsive and provide timely student support and feedback throughout the semester. The time invested in developing clear and detailed protocols for every activity, along with detailed rubrics and comprehensive support materials, proved essential for course sustainability. While initial development required significant effort, these resources enabled consistent course delivery across multiple iterations while maintaining quality standards.
3.5 Professional development integration
A key feature of our CURE was the explicit integration of professional development elements designed to support students in potential future academic and career opportunities. We included two dedicated sessions, one at the beginning and one at the end of the semester, to explain how students can best leverage their CURE experience for their career goals. Recognizing that many undergraduate students lack guidance on translating academic work into professional opportunities, we included videos covering how to describe a CURE research experience on CVs and resumes, with specific guidance on articulating their contributions to the database assessment project in professional contexts. The learning goals for these sessions were for students to learn how to articulate not just what they did, but also what they learned and how these research experiences are relevant to future opportunities. The explicit nature of this career preparation was essential, as undergraduate students, particularly freshmen, often struggle to recognize the professional value of their academic experiences. By providing specific language and concrete tips for describing their research contributions, we aimed to equip students to present their work confidently in competitive academic and professional contexts.
Additionally, we ensured providing long-term career support to students beyond the semester experience. Indeed, students were explicitly informed about the processes for requesting recommendation letters from the CURE instructors, with clear guidance on when and how such requests would be appropriate, as well as the information needed to write a letter. The video covering this topic included a brief explanation of the types of opportunities where leveraging their CURE experience would be relevant (graduate school applications, research internships, and competitive undergraduate programs) and the timeline for requesting letters.
The course also introduced students to using authentic research infrastructure, providing them with lasting professional benefits. For example, students interested in research opportunities were encouraged to sign up for an individual ORCID identifier to obtain a free, persistent identifier for use in their scholarly work and innovative activities. We provided an explanation of what the unique identifier is and its role in the current research landscape. This ORCID integration was not merely symbolic but functionally meaningful since students’ contributions to the database project were attributed through their ORCID profiles when the dataset was published with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) on Zenodo. Additionally, the use of GitHub for lab notebook documentation introduced students to version control systems and collaborative platforms widely used in research and technology sectors. Students learned to maintain transparent, reproducible documentation practices while gaining familiarity with tools increasingly valued across STEM careers. The public nature of their GitHub repositories provided portfolios of their research documentation skills, demonstrating attention to detail and professional communication abilities to future employers or graduate programs.
4 Lessons learned and practical recommendations
While the development of asynchronous online CURE classes was in large part driven by the constraints of the COVID pandemic (Broussard et al., 2021), they can can be successfully adapted to distributed learning environments, extending research opportunities to students who might otherwise be excluded (Mead et al., 2020; Plaisier et al., 2024). They however require careful attention to student engagement, clear communication, and community building. In our experience, the key design principles that emerged from our implementation include: (1) a front-loaded course preparation with comprehensive video tutorials and detailed protocols that leave more time for the instructors during the semester. The sustainability of this model depends heavily on upfront investment in comprehensive support materials and automated feedback mechanisms but enables consistent delivery across multiple iterations, a critical consideration for the long-term implementation of CUREs (Shortlidge et al., 2016) (2) Establishing clear but flexible deadlines that emphasize collaborative responsibility rather than rigid enforcement, and a system that allows for proactive identification of and support to students falling behind. This approach addresses equity as inflexible policies disproportionately impact first-generation students and those balancing multiple responsibilities (Hills and Peacock, 2022). Importantly, the emphasis on communication over punishment when students faced difficulties proved essential for maintaining engagement without compromising the quality of the research. Finally, (3) creating multiple touchpoints for student feedback and course improvement enables a better sense of community and involvement from the student in the class despite the lack of direct instructor-student interactions. Regular feedback mechanisms support continuous improvement, while also addressing the isolation common in asynchronous environments (Martin and Bolliger, 2018; Glazier, 2021). Equally important is the explicit integration of career development guidance, which becomes particularly valuable in asynchronous formats where informal mentorship opportunities are limited.
Future directions should explore how this framework might be adapted across disciplines and scaled to larger enrollments, while maintaining the personalized support that proves crucial for student success in independent research environments.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Author contributions
AP: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BH: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Resources.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. AP and BH acknowledges support from the CURE Institute training at the University of Arizona (to BH and AP). AP acknowledges support from the Academy of Finland (339172 to AP) and from the BBSRC Institute Strategic Program Food Microbiome and Health BB/X011054/1 and the BBSRC Core Capability Grant BB/CCG2260/1. BH acknowledges funding from North Carolina State University for start-up funds.
Acknowledgments
We would like to give our sincere thanks to the students who enrolled in the BAT102 class, without whom this experience would not have been possible. Thank you for your hard work and amazing engagement. We would also like to thank the team at the CURE Institute, in particular Courtney Leligdon and Kelley Merriam-Castro for their amazing support during and after the development of our class. Finally, we would like to thank Heidy Imker, whose support in the class research project was critical for the success of this CURE project.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Grammarly and Claude.ai (anthropic) were used to improve text readability and English grammar. The authors have verified the suggestions generated and take full responsibility for the use of generative AI in preparation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
References
Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I., et al. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 29–40. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004,
Bangera, G., and Brownell, S. E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 602–606. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099,
Broussard, C., Courtney, M. G., Dunn, S., Godde, K., and Preisler, V. (2021). Course-based undergraduate research experiences performance following the transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 51, 27–41. doi: 10.1080/0047231X.2021.12290539
Brownell, S. E., and Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Stud. High. Educ. 40, 525–544. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1004234
Buchanan, A. J., and Fisher, G. R. (2022). Current status and implementation of science practices in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs): a systematic literature review. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 21:ar83. doi: 10.1187/cbe.22-04-0069,
Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Lawrence, N., and Munafò, M. R. (2020). Grassroots training for reproducible science: a consortium-based approach to the empirical dissertation. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 19, 77–90. doi: 10.1177/1475725719857659
Chiu, Meng-Chieh, Moss, Eliot, and Richards, Timothy. (2024). Effect of deadlines on student submission timelines and success in a fully-online self-paced course. Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, New York, NY, USA, SIGCSE 2024 1
Chowning, J. T., Griswold, J. C., Kovarik, D. N., and Collins, L. J. (2012). Fostering critical thinking, reasoning, and argumentation skills through bioethics education. PLoS One 7:e36791. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036791,
Clark, D., and Talbert, R. (2023). Grading for Growth: A Guide to Alternative Grading Practices that Promote Authentic Learning and Student Engagement in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Corwin, L. A., Graham, M. J., and Dolan, E. L. (2015). Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: an agenda for future research and evaluation. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 14:es1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-10-0167,
Cullen, S., and Oppenheimer, D. (2024). Choosing to learn: the importance of student autonomy in higher education. Sci. Adv. 10:eado6759. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ado6759,
Fey, S. B., Theus, M. E., and Ramirez, A. R. (2020). Course-based undergraduate research experiences in a remote setting: two case studies documenting implementation and student perceptions. Ecol. Evol. 10, 12528–12541. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6916,
Glazier, R. A. (2021). Connecting in the Online Classroom. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Govindan, B., Pickett, S., and Riggs, B. (2020). Fear of the CURE: a beginner’s guide to overcoming barriers in creating a course-based undergraduate research experience. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 21:50. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i2.2109,
Hajshirmohammadi, Atousa. 2023. ‘Supporting students’ time management through deadline flexibility and responsive instructor support’. 2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)
Heim, A. B., and Holt, E. A. (2019). Benefits and challenges of instructing introductory biology course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) as perceived by graduate teaching assistants. Life Sci. Educ. 18:ar43. doi: 10.1187/cbe.18-09-0193,
Hills, M., and Peacock, K. (2022). Replacing power with flexible structure: implementing flexible deadlines to improve student learning experiences. Teach. Learn. Inq. 10. doi: 10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.26
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16, 235–266. doi: 10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
Hoffman, D. L., Furutomo, F., Eichelberger, A., and McKimmy, P. (2023). Matters of frequency, immediacy and regularity: engagement in an online asynchronous course. Innov. High. Educ. 48, 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10755-023-09646-9,
Howitt, S. M., and Wilson, A. N. (2018). Reflecting on the use and abuse of scientific data facilitates students’ ethical and epistemological development. Sci. Educ. 102, 571–592. doi: 10.1002/sce.21333
Imker, H. J. (2018). 25 years of molecular biology databases: a study of proliferation, impact, and maintenance. Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 3. doi: 10.3389/frma.2018.00018
Kennette, L. N., and Rivers, M. (2024). Student perceptions of flexible deadlines. J. Innov. Polytech. Educ. 6, 89–101. doi: 10.69520/jipe.v6i.202
Linton, K. F., Barker, B., Betka, J. M., and Clobes, T. A. (2025). Course-based undergraduate research experiences’ influence on STEM belonging. HETS Online J. 15, 5–32. doi: 10.55420/2693.9193.v15.n2.331
Malotky, M. K. H., Mayes, K. M., Price, K. M., Smith, G., Mann, S. N., Guinyard, M. W., et al. (2020). Fostering inclusion through an interinstitutional, community-engaged, course-based undergraduate research experience. J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 21. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1939
Marra, R. M., Jonassen, D. H., Palmer, B., and Luft, S. (2014). Why problem-based learning works: theoretical foundation. J. Excell. Coll. Teach. 25, 221–338.
Martin, F., and Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learn. 22, 205–222. doi: 10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Mead, C., Supriya, K., Zheng, Y., Anbar, A. D., Collins, J. P., LePore, P., et al. (2020). Online biology degree program broadens access for women, first-generation to college, and low-income students, but grade disparities remain. PLoS One 15:e0243916. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243916,
Mercer-Mapstone, L., and Kuchel, L. (2017). Core skills for effective science communication: a teaching resource for undergraduate science education. Int. J. Sci. Educ. B 7, 181–201. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573
Minichiello, A., Lawanto, O., Goodridge, W., Iqbal, A., and Asghar, M. (2022). Flipping the digital switch: affective responses of STEM undergraduates to emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proj. Leadersh. Soc. 3:100043. doi: 10.1016/j.plas.2022.100043
Mraz-Craig, J. A., Daniel, K. L., Bucklin, C. J., Mishra, C., Ali, L., and Clase, K. L. (2018). Student identities in authentic course-based undergraduate research experience. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 48, 68–75.
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., du Sert, N. P., et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:0021. doi: 10.1038/s41562-016-0021,
Nadelson, L. S., Walters, L., and Waterman, J. (2010). Course-integrated undergraduate research experiences structured at different levels of inquiry. J. STEM Educ. Innov. Res. 11, 27–44.
Onah, D. F. O., Sinclair, J. E., and Boyatt, R. (2014). Dropout rates of massive open online courses: behavioural patterns. 5825–5834. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2402.0009
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., and Wynn, S. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. J. Educ. Psychol. 102, 896–915. doi: 10.1037/a0019545
Pennington, C. R. (2023). A Student’s Guide to Open Science: Using the Replication Crisis to Reform Psychology. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Plaisier, S. B., Alarid, D. O., Denning, J. A., Brownell, S. E., Buetow, K. H., Cooper, K. M., et al. (2024). Design and implementation of an asynchronous online course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) in computational genomics. PLoS Comput. Biol. 20:e1012384. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012384,
Rodenbusch, S. E., Hernandez, P. R., Simmons, S. L., and Dolan, E. L. (2016). Early engagement in course-based research increases graduation rates and completion of science, engineering, and mathematics degrees. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15:ar20. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117,
Rodrigo-Peiris, T., Xiang, L., and Cassone, V. M. (2018). A low-intensity, hybrid design between a “traditional” and a “course-based” research experience yields positive outcomes for science undergraduate freshmen and shows potential for large-scale application. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17:ar53. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-11-0248,
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68,
Savery, J. R. (2019). “Comparative pedagogical models of problem-based learning” in The Wiley Handbook of Problem-based Learning. eds. M. Moallem, W. Hung, and N. Dabbagh (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd). doi: 10.1002/9781119173243
Shortlidge, E. E., Bangera, G., and Brownell, S. E. (2016). Faculty perspectives on developing and teaching course-based undergraduate research experiences. Bioscience 66, 54–62. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv167
Tila, D., and Levy, D. (2024). Increasing students’ growth mindset and learning perception by allowing online revision and resubmission in a community college. Soc. Educ. Res., 5, 23–38. doi: 10.37256/ser.5120243499
Tripp, B., Ravi, A., Pang, E., and Furrow, R. E. (2025). Undergraduate STEM students’ perceptions of grading practices reveal that quiz retakes positively impact drivers of self-determination. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 24:ar4. doi: 10.1187/cbe.24-06-0167,
Wei, C. A., and Woodin, T. (2011). Undergraduate research experiences in biology: alternatives to the apprenticeship model. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 10, 123–131. doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-03-0028,
Werth, A., Oliver, K., West, C. G., and Lewandowski, H. J. (2022). Assessing student engagement with teamwork in an online, large-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience in physics. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18:128. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020128
Keywords: asynchronous learning, course based undergraduate experience, CURE, open science, STEM education
Citation: Ponsero AJ and Hurwitz BL (2026) Fostering open science literacy through an asynchronous CURE: challenges and strategies of a fully online student research experience. Front. Educ. 11:1710077. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1710077
Edited by:
Vanda Santos, University of Aveiro, PortugalReviewed by:
Joan Roque, University of Puerto Rico at Cayey, Puerto RicoCopyright © 2026 Ponsero and Hurwitz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Alise J. Ponsero, YWxpc2UucG9uc2Vyb0BxdWFkcmFtLmFjLnVr; Bonnie L. Hurwitz, YmxodXJ3aXRAbmNzdS5lZHU=