There is increasing interest in understanding how active learning affects students’ mental health as science courses transition from traditional lecture to active learning. Prior research has found that active learning can both alleviate and exacerbate undergraduate mental health problems. Existing studies have only examined the relationship between active learning and anxiety. No studies have examined the relationship between active learning and undergraduate depression. To address this gap in the literature, we conducted hour-long exploratory interviews with 29 students with depression who had taken active learning science courses across six U.S. institutions. We probed what aspects of active learning practices exacerbate or alleviate depressive symptoms and how students’ depression affects their experiences in active learning. We found that aspects of active learning practices exacerbate and alleviate students’ depressive symptoms, and depression negatively impacts students’ experiences in active learning. The underlying aspects of active learning practices that impact students’ depression fall into four overarching categories: inherently social, inherently engaging, opportunities to compare selves to others, and opportunities to validate or invalidate intelligence. We hope that by better understanding the experiences of undergraduates with depression in active learning courses we can create more inclusive learning environments for these students.

We recommend using backward design to develop course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). The defining hallmark of CUREs is that students in a formal lab course explore research questions with unknown answers that are broadly relevant outside the course. Because CUREs lead to novel research findings, they represent a unique course design challenge, as the dual nature of these courses requires course designers to consider two distinct, but complementary, sets of goals for the CURE: 1) scientific discovery milestones (i.e., research goals) and 2) student learning in cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains (i.e., pedagogical goals). As more undergraduate laboratory courses are re-imagined as CUREs, how do we thoughtfully design these courses to effectively meet both sets of goals? In this Perspectives article, we explore this question and outline recommendations for using backward design in CURE development.

Summer bridge programs are designed to help transition students into the college learning environment. Increasingly, bridge programs are being developed in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines because of the rigorous content and lower student persistence in college STEM compared with other disciplines. However, to our knowledge, a comprehensive review of STEM summer bridge programs does not exist. To provide a resource for bridge program developers, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on STEM summer bridge programs. We identified 46 published reports on 30 unique STEM bridge programs that have been published over the past 25 years. In this review, we report the goals of each bridge program and whether the program was successful in meeting these goals. We identify 14 distinct bridge program goals that can be organized into three categories: academic success goals, psychosocial goals, and department-level goals. Building on the findings of published bridge reports, we present a set of recommendations for STEM bridge programs in hopes of developing better bridges into college.