ACC CURES

CURE Evaluation Plan

Introducing CUREs in Community College
Innovations for Implementing and Sustaining Undergraduate Research in STEM Curricula | Arapahoe Community College

Project Success Metrics

5
CURE curriculum resources developed annually
50%
Repository lessons used by other faculty
60+
Faculty trained over 3 years
Treatment vs Control
Student outcome comparisons

Evaluation Framework

Mixed-Methods Design

The evaluation employs a comprehensive mixed-methods approach combining quantitative outcome measurements with qualitative process documentation. Control and treatment group comparisons provide rigorous evidence of CURE effectiveness, while process evaluation ensures implementation fidelity and identifies best practices for sustainability and scaling.

Statistical Analysis Methods

  • Independent Sample t-Tests: Compare mean gain scores between control and treatment groups when data is normally distributed
  • Mann-Whitney U Tests: Compare distribution of gains when data is not normally distributed
  • Chi-Squared Tests: Measure differences in retention rates between groups
  • Disaggregated Analysis: Separate analysis for under-represented student populations

Data Collection Strategy

  • Pre/post Likert scale surveys measuring student confidence and STEM abilities
  • Professional development participation logs and post-training evaluations
  • Faculty surveys on preparation and resource adequacy
  • CURE curriculum repository usage tracking
  • Student transfer and retention data from institutional records
  • Research presentation documentation and symposium participation
Goal 1: Increase the percentage of faculty who integrate research experiences into the curriculum of STEM courses
Objective 1.1: Increase the percentage of STEM faculty who report that they feel adequately prepared and have the resources to integrate research into their course curriculum

3-Year Training Targets

60
Faculty
3
Lab Prep Personnel
6-15
Tutors
4-8
Advisors
Activities
  • Comprehensive Faculty Training: Train 60 faculty members over 3 years in CURE implementation and research integration strategies
  • Support Staff Development: Train 3 lab preparation personnel to support research-based laboratory experiences
  • Student Support Network: Train 6-15 tutors and 4-8 advisors to provide student mentoring and academic support
  • CURE Project Taskforce: Create taskforce including paid STEM Student Trainers and Advisors for Research (STEM STARS)
  • Ongoing Professional Development: Provide continuous training opportunities and resource development
Data Collection
  • Professional development logs of participants with detailed descriptions of training content
  • Post-training surveys measuring learning outcomes and perceived utility
  • Pre/post faculty surveys assessing adequate preparation and available resources
  • Names, descriptions, and meeting minutes of taskforce members
  • Documentation of STEM STARS program activities and impact
Measurements
  • Unduplicated count of professional development participants from combined PD logs
  • Summary analysis of post-training survey responses showing learning gains
  • Pre/post comparison of faculty confidence and preparedness levels
  • Assessment of resource adequacy and barrier reduction over time
  • Tracking of sustained faculty engagement in CURE implementation
Timeline
  • Ongoing: Professional development activities as they occur
  • Ongoing: Post-training survey results provided to program staff
  • January Year 1: Initial pre-survey administration
  • End of each program year: Pre-survey repeated for comparison
  • Annually: Aggregated results compiled for year-end reporting
Goal 2: Build a library of CURE curriculum to be shared among faculty
Objective 2.1: At least 3 wet-lab and 2 dry lab CUREs curricular resources will be developed each year
Activities
  • Comprehensive CURE Development: Create lessons containing guides, training resources, and recorded skill demonstrations
  • Activity Documentation: Develop written descriptions of research activities, assignments, and assessments
  • Multi-Modal Resources: Include both wet-lab (hands-on laboratory) and dry-lab (computational/analytical) components
  • Flexible Delivery Options: Design resources for in-person, virtual, and hybrid implementation
Data Collection
  • Comprehensive review of lessons in repository with detailed cataloging
  • Documentation of resource development process and authorship
  • Classification of lessons by type (wet/dry lab), delivery mode (in-person/virtual)
  • Recording of lesson duration and scope (weeks of content)
Measurements
  • Annual count and description of developed CURE lessons
  • Breakdown by wet-lab vs. dry-lab resource types
  • Categorization by delivery modality (in-person, virtual, hybrid)
  • Duration analysis showing weeks of content coverage
Timeline
  • Annually: Comprehensive review and cataloging of repository contents
  • Ongoing: Continuous development and addition of new resources
  • End of Year 1: Minimum 5 resources (3 wet-lab, 2 dry-lab)
  • End of Year 2: Minimum 10 total resources
  • End of Year 3: Minimum 15 total resources
Goal 3: Students will successfully continue their education on STEM career pathways
Objective 3.1: The percentage of students who report comfort and confidence with research methods and their STEM abilities will increase after completing a course with a CUREs component
Activities
  • Treatment vs Control Design: Survey students in both treatment (CURE) and control groups when possible
  • Likert Scale Assessment: Use validated instruments measuring confidence in research methods and STEM skills
  • Research Presentations: Students present their research projects at symposiums
  • Longitudinal Tracking: Follow student progress and confidence development over time
Data Collection
  • Pre and post survey data from treatment and control groups
  • Records of students presenting research with project descriptions
  • Documentation of symposium names and participation details
  • Demographic data for disaggregated analysis by student populations
Statistical Analysis
  • Independent Sample t-Test: Compare mean gain scores between control and treatment groups (if normally distributed)
  • Mann-Whitney U Test: Compare distribution of gains if data is not normally distributed
  • Disaggregated Analysis: Conduct same comparisons for under-represented student groups
  • Symposium Participation: Count of students presenting research at symposiums
Timeline
  • Each semester: Pre/post survey administration
  • Ongoing: Documentation of research presentations
  • Semester end: Statistical analysis of confidence gains
  • Annual: Comprehensive analysis including under-represented groups

Comprehensive Evaluation Strategy

Rigorous Research Design

The evaluation employs gold-standard research methods including treatment vs. control group comparisons, pre/post measurements, and appropriate statistical analyses. This design provides strong evidence for causal claims about CURE effectiveness while ensuring results are statistically valid and educationally meaningful.

Implementation and Sustainability

The evaluation framework balances outcome measurement with process evaluation to understand not just whether CUREs work, but how they work and what conditions support successful implementation. This dual focus provides actionable insights for scaling and sustaining CURE programs beyond the grant period.