Undergraduate research using single-subject research design in exercise physiology.

Undergraduate research (UGR), particularly in the sciences, has been documented to be a high-impact educational practice that teaches a variety of disciplinary and transferable skills, as well as supports the personal and professional development of the undergraduate scientist (24). A variety of reports across many disciplines show that engaging in an UGR experience can enhance disciplinary skills, such as research design, data collection and analysis, information literacy, and scientific communication (22, 23, 32). Students, who conducted research as an undergraduate, also noted gains in a better understanding of the research process and clarification of their career path. UGR has also been shown to improve other more global transferable skills and habits, such as student self-confidence, tolerance for obstacles, and an ability to work independently (23). In addition, UGR experiences have been shown to be especially beneficial for underrepresented minority students and women (2, 12, 15, 20), as intensive UGR experiences help create strong mentoring relationships with more senior scientists and esprit de corps with others students that can offer needed support during challenging times (2, 12, 15). Collectively, UGR experiences promote retention in STEM fields and increase the likelihood that students will pursue a PhD (17). Historically, these experiences have taken a variety of names, such as research internships, research apprenticeships, UGR experiences, or research experiences for undergraduates. Still, the challenges of traditional UGR experiences are that they serve so few students, are quite competitive to find, and require the devotion of extensive time, usually in summer or time outside of class. In response to these limitations and in an attempt to broaden UGR participation, many faculty members have begun using Course Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CURE) (1, 6, 11) or inquiry-based laboratories (31). Both CURE and inquiry-based laboratories embed research in a formal laboratory class, permitting a larger group of students to gain research experience. Although they share many similar features, CURE laboratories represent a more comprehensive model of inquiry-based laboratory experiences. In inquirybased laboratories, students, mostly in groups, focus on smaller projects that last a few weeks, are centered around a single part of the research process, research question, or technique, and often culminate in a larger multiweek project to conclude the course (31, 36). The advantages of both inquiry-based and CURE experiences is that they require only one instructor, are open to any student who enrolls in the course, are conducted primarily during class time, and are typically carried out in a teaching laboratory, as opposed to specialized research spaced. Both CURE and inquiry laboratories were intended to replace traditional laboratory courses, also known as confirmation, verification, or “cookbook” laboratories (36). Both inquirybased laboratories and CUREs have the potential to expand the number of students exposed to UGR in meaningful ways. Both also promote student engagement when students ask and answer their own questions, which also contributes to student engagement and persistence in science (19). Introductory level courses are also a great place for these experiences (7, 16), as they give students an early start on a potential research career path (17, 19). Both CURE and inquiry-based laboratories show gains in self-confidence and problem solving and an ability to work independently, similar to those observed in singular research experiences (17, 34). Course-based and inquiry-based laboratories for UGR in physiology and exercise physiology have been reported in this journal and elsewhere (4, 5, 10, 13, 17, 25, 30, 31). In many cases, CURE and inquiry-based laboratories often involve group projects rather than individually designed and carried out projects. While group work has been shown to positively affect student learning outcomes, such as collaboration, there remains the problem of the varying commitment that any given student will bring to the group (10, 28). For example, in group projects, the selection of the research question may not fully motivate each team member to the same degree. Another challenge with group projects is that students often divide tasks based on their strengths (project design, writing, data collection, computer work, etc.), often avoiding the more personally challenging tasks in which they do need experience. Moreover, one of the most persistent challenges in group work is for each group member to contribute his/her fair share of the time on task (10, 25). Project scheduling has also been noted as one of the consistent challenges of group work, as some students may work or not want to meet outside of “lab” time (10). Thus the challenge was to balance the need for individual students to design and conduct meaningful research while avoiding the pitfalls of group work that may detract from student learning without losing the value of collaboration. For this experience, a single-subject research design was employ, where the individual participant is the unit of analysis (27). Single-subject research has been used extensively in the development of evidence-based practice in special education (18) and rehabilitation research (3). The purpose of single-subject Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: T. G. Favero, University of Portland, MSC 60, 5000 N. Willamette Blvd., Portland OR 97203 (e-mail: favero@up.edu). Adv Physiol Educ 43: 392–396, 2019; doi:10.1152/advan.00053. 2019.