36 Journal of College Science Teaching Over the past decade, several reports have recommended a shift in undergraduate biology laboratory courses from traditionally structured, often described as “cookbook,” to authentic research-based experiences. This study compares a cookbook-type laboratory course to a research- based undergraduate biology laboratory course at a Research 1 institution. The research-based lab course had several hallmarks of authentic research: a single longitudinal research focus, research questions with currently unknown answers, student- determined experimental designs, and collaboration among lab peers. Twenty students in the research- based lab were matched with 20 students in the cookbook lab on the basis of ive demographic characteristics. This study found that students in the research-based lab had more positive attitudes toward authentic research, higher self-conidence in lab-related tasks, and increased interest in pursuing future research compared with students in the cookbook laboratory course. This study provides empirical evidence supporting the recommendations for incorporating more authentic research components in laboratory courses. R ecent publications, in- cluding BIO 2010: A New Biology for the 21st Century (National Research Council [NRC], 2003), Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2010), and A New Biology for the 21st Century (National Academy of Sciences [NAS], 2010), highlight needed changes for undergraduate biology, including a shift away from traditionally structured lab courses toward more authentic research ex- periences in undergraduate biology laboratories. The traditionally struc- tured lab, common to high school and undergraduate settings (McComas, 2005; Sundberg and Armstrong, 1993), provides students with step- by-step instructions by which to carry out an investigation, earning the name cookbook lab that we will use henceforth. Cookbook labs typi- cally engage students at a minimal intellectual level (Holt, Abramoff, Wilcox, & Abell, 1969; Modell & Michael, 1993); the recipe-like activities leave many students un- aware of the signiicance of experi- mental results (Germann, Haskins, & Auls, 1996; Modell & Michael, 1993). Perhaps most disconcerting, cookbook lab courses often expose students to inaccurate representa- Undergraduate Biology Lab Courses: Comparing the Impact of Traditionally Based “Cookbook” and Authentic Research-Based Courses on Student Lab Experiences By Sara E. Brownell, Matthew J. Kloser, Tadashi Fukami, and Rich Shavelson tions of scientiic research (Cox & Davis, 1972). Rather than modeling how scientists develop and warrant knowledge claims, cookbook labs often relect how well students can follow directions with little regard for the conceptual and procedural understanding of the investigation. The idea of redesigning cookbook labs has been promoted for over 40 years. In the 1960s, the Commission on Undergraduate Education in Biological Sciences recommended that “the best use of the laboratory in undergraduate instruction is to engage the student in the process of active investigation” (Holt et al., 1969, p. 1104). Subsequent aca- demic committees and publications have echoed this recommendation, emphasizing the importance of an active learning environment that encourages independent thinking and problem solving within scien- tiic inquiry (AAAS, 2010; Boyer Commission, 1998; NRC, 1996, 2000, 2003; Weaver, Russell, & Wink, 2008; Wood, 2003, 2009). In accordance with these recom- mendations, colleges and universities have tried to implement a variety of lab experiences (Gehring & Eastman, 2008; Howard & Miskowski, 2005; Matthews, Adams, & Goos, 2010; Rissing & Cogan, 2009; Simmons, Wu, Knight, & Lopez, 2008;