Could instructor talk drive CURE effectiveness? A comparative study of instructor talk in introductory lab courses
Christopher James ZajiciD, Kelly SubramanianiD, Arnav Adulla, Zarae A. Allen, Meghan B. BlitchingtoniD, Avery Brotzman, Edward Carrillo, Jheel Dhruv, Taliyah Evans, Sabrina Haider, Sehee Ashley Han, Leighton Hilton, Katie Holliday, Ethan Keairnes, Joon Kum, William Nathan Lantz, Joel W. MartiniD, Victoria A. Martin, Matthew Pierce-Tomlin, Mallory J. Plunkett, Cheryl S. Sam, Fama Sarr, Amanda Shroyer, Caitlin Tucker, Kenneth WaltoniD, , Erin L. DolaniD
Abstract
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are thought to enhance students motivation to continue in college, in science, and in research. Yet, how CUREs enhance student motivation is largely undefined. Theories of instructor immediacy, self-efficacy, and task values suggest that CURE instructors may talk in ways that influence students motivational beliefs. We characterized the non-content related talk of instructors teaching 48 introductory biology lab courses, half CUREs and half non-CUREs. We identified 14 types of instructor talk that fit these theoretical perspectives: fostering students closeness with their instructor (i.e., immediacy talk), building students confidence in their scientific abilities (i.e., self-efficacy talk), and promoting students sense of worth in their work (i.e., task value talk). Course type had a medium effect on talk type, with CURE instructors utilizing more immediacy, self-efficacy, and task values talk than non-CURE instructors but also showing more variation in these types of talk. Our results suggest that motivation-related instructor talk is more prevalent in CUREs than non-CUREs, but wide variation in CURE instructor talk indicates additional investigation is needed before non-content talk can be considered a mechanism for the motivational influences of CUREs. HIGHLIGHTThis study compares non-content instructor talk in CURE and non-CURE lab courses using immediacy, self-efficacy, and task value theories. CURE instructors use more talk than non-CURE instructors, but variation in CURE instructor talk leaves open the question of whether talk is a causal factor in the motivational influence of CURE instruction.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 3
- FWCI
- 41.08
- Field percentile
- top 1%
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Influence of non-content instructor talk on students' motivation-related outcomes in laboratory courses
Christopher James Zajic, Erin L. Dolan·bioRxiv·May 15, 2026
- Variation in CURE instruction and limitations of CURE studies undermine what can be concluded about CURE effects on student outcomes
William Nathan Lantz, Erin L. Dolan, … Ania A. Majewska·bioRxiv·Oct 13, 2026
- Are they funny? Associations between instructors humor and student emotions in undergraduate lab courses
Zarae A. Allen, Christopher James Zajic, … Trevor T. Tuma·Journal of Microbiology and Biology EducationPeer-reviewed·Nov 7, 2025
- Fly-CURE, a Multi-institutional CURE using Drosophila, Increases Students' Confidence, Sense of Belonging, and Persistence in Research
J. A. Merkle, O. Devergne, … J. D. Kagey·bioRxiv·Jan 16, 2023
- What drives change? Characterizing scientific self-efficacy development in undergraduate research experiences
Qiyue Zhang, Paul R. Hernandez, … Erin L. Dolan·bioRxiv·Aug 18, 2025
- Tiny Earth CURE improves student persistence in science
S. Miller, C. C. Aldana, … M. Estrada·bioRxiv·Jun 21, 2023