The goals of the Cancer Genomics course are to (1) teach foundational concepts in cancer genomics, (2) introduce students to approaches used to study cancer genomes, and (3) provide exposure to different careers in the field of cancer genomics, using a virtual platform that is flexible and accessible to undergraduates across the United States. Over four iterations from 2021 to 2024, the course has evolved, incorporating best practices in teaching that foster student engagement while accommodating large enrollments without compromising the student experience. The pilot instance with 26 students in 2021 established the course structure with two components: (1) synchronous sessions including didactic lessons, guest speaker presentations, and interactive group work and (2) asynchronous engagement using a learning management system for formative assessment of understanding and collaborative discussion boards prompting reflection. All synchronous sessions take place on Zoom, and asynchronous work is completed at each student’s pace. Members of the JAX GE team who are trained cancer researchers deliver didactic content lessons, and invited speakers present their cancer research projects or describe the impact of genomics in their clinical careers. Speakers demonstrate the application of cancer genomics concepts in research and clinical care, providing valuable career exposure for students considering their career paths [11, 12].

The course includes an inquiry project where students assume the role of a clinical oncologist and analyze data from a fictitious patient who received genomic tumor testing to identify potentially pathogenic gene variants. Groups of five to six students evaluate the consequence of genetic variation on biological function, classify variant clinical significance, and identify actionable therapies. The project is scaffolded through checkpoint assignments that guide students through cancer genomics databases, such as cBioPortal and OncoKB. Ultimately, each group creates a finalized genomic tumor testing patient report detailing data collected about gene variants identified in their fictious patient’s tumor and associated actionable therapies. They also assemble a short presentation detailing a treatment strategy for their patient that is delivered on the last day of the course.

Over several course iterations, we observed that some participants who were unable to complete every course element stopped attending altogether. In response, in 2024, we created concurrent tiers of engagement that build upon each other, providing flexibility within the course structure and further enhancing accessibility (Fig. 1). Tier I participants attend large group synchronous sessions, totaling 6 h over 2 weeks. Participants in Tier II attend the same large group synchronous sessions, and complete asynchronous group discussions, reflections, and assignments on the learning management system, requiring up to four additional hours outside of class. Tier III students attend all synchronous sessions, complete asynchronous activities, and join small groups to conduct inquiry projects for an additional 10 h over the 2 weeks (20 total hours). Students who complete Tier III earn a digital badge microcredential issued through Credly®, while those who complete Tier II instead earn a certificate of completion. In 2024, of 229 course participants, 108 earned a digital badge and 74 earned a certificate (Table 1). This strategy accommodates students who may have other obligations and cannot dedicate significant time outside of class to complete asynchronous work. While Tier I students will not benefit from the inquiry project or deeper engagement, they receive content presented in didactic lessons and are exposed to possible career paths by attending guest speaker presentations. With flexibility to shift tiers at the start of the class, students can assess the workload and choose their engagement accordingly.

Tiers of engagement offer flexibility for student enrollment and time commitment. Three tiers of engagement build on each other and Tier III participants engage with all three course elements

In four instances, 374 undergraduates from 164 colleges and universities in 37 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico completed the course. The institutions varied from large public universities to small private liberal arts schools to 2-year colleges. Eighty-two percent of course participants reported majoring in life sciences, although there are increasing numbers of computational biology, bioinformatics, and engineering majors (Table 1). We recommend that students complete 1 year of college before enrolling to increase the likelihood of familiarity with concepts covered in introductory biology; therefore, most students were entering their second, third, or fourth years (Table 1). Notably, we consistently enrolled a large portion of female-identifying students, 75% overall (Table 1).

While the course is open to any undergraduate from any college or university, we focused recruitment on minority-serving institutions (MSIs) to increase access to students from groups traditionally underrepresented in cancer research. We curated a list of life science faculty and advisors at MSIs and emailed this list information about the course to share with their students. In 2023, the first year of prioritized recruitment, 86% of 102 students attended an MSI, 73% identified with minority racial and ethnic groups, and 45% reported being a first-generation college student (Table 1). In 2024, we increased enrollment to 229 with 59% attending an MSI, 59% reporting identities with racial and ethnic minority groups, 41% from disadvantaged educational backgrounds, and 31% in more than one category as previously defined by the Notice of NIH’s Interest in Diversity NOT-OD-20–031 (Table 1, data not shown).

To formally assess if this course (1) is an effective way of learning about cancer genomics and about conducting research in this field and (2) has a positive impact on interest in science and pursuing career paths in research, we identified the Classroom Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) survey as a validated instrument to evaluate “research like” undergraduate courses [13]. We invited Tier III students in the 2024 course to take a pre-survey a week before course commencement and a post-survey within a week of course completion to assess their perceptions and attitudes. We focused the study on Tier III students as they engaged with each course element and completed the inquiry project. Considering the course duration of 2 weeks and the fact that only 30 students completed both pre- and post-course surveys (see Limitations), as expected, it was difficult to discern changes. Using paired t-tests from pre- and post-survey data (n = 30), we did not uncover significant changes regarding student opinions of science or increases in perceived ability to perform course elements (data not shown). However, data collected on the post-survey, including the course evaluation (Fig. 2a) and measurement of benefits gained (Fig. 2b), demonstrated positive outcomes.

Course participants report positive benefits, gains in research skills, and clarification of career path. Percentages were calculated from total post-survey responses (n = 30) to Likert scale items on the CURE post-survey instrument to evaluate the overall course (a) and course benefits (b) [13]

The overall course evaluation data, shown in Fig. 2a, indicate students strongly agreed or agreed that the course was a good way learn about the subject matter (100%) and about the process of scientific research (93%). In addition, 100% of students strongly agreed or agreed that the course had a positive effect on their interest in science (Fig. 2a).

Students reported gains in competencies associated with research including ability to analyze data and skill in the interpretation of results with 90% indicating at least a moderate gain for each (Fig. 2b). Students also reported skill gains in how to give an effective oral presentation, which is important for communication as a researcher or in biomedical careers (Fig. 2b). Eighty-one percent of students reported at least a moderate gain in readiness for more demanding research (Fig. 2b). Most students had at least moderate gains in their understanding of science (86%), the research process in their field (89%), how scientists think (93%), and how scientists work on real problems (94%) (Fig. 2b). Each of these gains is consequential as a majority reported they are heading towards research-focused graduate programs. Sixty-six percent of post-survey responders indicated their goal is to attend graduate school for either a Ph.D. in a biology-related field (43%) or Masters in a STEM field (23%) (data not shown). Importantly, 90% of students reported at least a moderate gain in clarification of career path with 50% naming a large or very large gain (Fig. 2b).

One limitation of this study is the evaluation of participant outcomes. The course is ungraded and only 2 weeks long, which we suspect impacted our capacity to detect changes in attitudes about science and research between pre- and post-course surveys. We also had to rely on digital communication to distribute surveys, which contributed to a low response rate particularly on the post-course survey that only 30 of 108 students completed. However, the demographics of the post-survey responders do reflect that of the entire group who completed the highest engagement course tier.

Another challenge is student enrollment and retention. The Jackson Laboratory is a not a degree-granting institution, and we do not provide university or college credit. While we do not charge students to take the course and offer a microcredential to students who qualify upon completion, we notice significant attrition from the time of registration. We also observed shifts in demographics when comparing the group that registered for and the group that ultimately completed Tier III, the most demanding level of the course. We do not know the specific motivations behind these shifts to a lower tier of engagement in the first week of the course. However, collecting data from subsequent iterations could allow us to pinpoint the factors influencing tier changes, and we could modify the course to make it more accessible to the most vulnerable students or those that could benefit most from deeper engagement.