Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Curtis, J.W.; Haines, A.N.;
Barekzi, N. The Impact of
Community-Focused CUREs on
Biology Student Identity,
Persistence, and Career Outcomes at
an HBCU. Trends High. Educ. 2024,3,
978–992. https://doi.org/10.3390/
higheredu3040057
Academic Editors: Carla C. Johnson
and Janet B. Walton
Received: 29 August 2024
Revised: 30 October 2024
Accepted: 12 November 2024
Published: 19 November 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
The Impact of Community-Focused CUREs on Biology Student
Identity, Persistence, and Career Outcomes at an HBCU
John W. Curtis 1,* , Ashley N. Haines 2and Nazir Barekzi 2
1JWC Research, Washington, DC 20009, USA
2Biology Department, Norfolk State University, Norfolk, VA 23504, USA; anhaines@nsu.edu (A.N.H.);
nabarekzi@nsu.edu (N.B.)
*Correspondence: john@jwcresearch.net
Abstract: Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been widely hailed as
an innovative approach to engage students in college coursework through exposure to authentic
research, leading to improved persistence and more equitable access to research opportunities. This
article presents an analysis of the impact of implementing a novel type of CURE across the biology
curriculum at one public historically black university, introducing a community focus through a
partnership with a local nonprofit organization working to restore a polluted local river. The analysis
incorporates survey research on student science identity and sense of belonging with administrative
records on persistence to graduation and limited data on graduates’ further education and careers.
We find that more of the students who completed these novel CUREs graduated on time with a
biology degree than those who did not complete CUREs, and that most biology graduates do go
on to use their degrees in further education and/or careers in science or healthcare. We discuss the
limitations of our analysis, including the relatively short timeframe covered by our data, the almost
incalculable impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the retrospective nature of our assessment.
Keywords: biology; persistence; CURE; community; HBCU; identity; belonging
1. Introduction
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been widely hailed
as an important innovation in higher education. Bangera and Brownell [
1
] provide an
overview of how making authentic research experiences part of required courses can
expose more students to the benefits of independent research while overcoming barriers and
inequities in the traditional student research model. The barriers they describe are related to
cultural capital in the higher education context, which tends to put first-generation students,
those from lower socioeconomic status families, and students of color at a disadvantage.
They note that awareness is the first barrier for students participating in independent
research: awareness of research opportunities, awareness of the benefits of participating
in research, and awareness of the cultural norms associated with the process of finding
an independent research experience. The need to take initiative and contact a faculty
member about participating in research represents another inequitable barrier. Students
who engage in paid work or have caregiving responsibilities are also unable to pursue
research experiences that are unpaid or require additional time commitment outside of class.
Bangera and Brownell also describe the structure of faculty rewards and incentives
as another source of inequity in providing students with opportunities for independent
research. “Arguably, given the current reward structure, the primary function of a research
lab is to produce novel results, with a secondary function of training the next generation of
scientists” [
1
] (p. 604). This pressure for results may lead faculty members to favor students
who are outgoing and already demonstrate some research experience; unconscious bias
may also lead them to prefer white male students over women and students of color. One
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3, 978–992. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu3040057 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/higheredu
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3979
approach to reducing these inequities in research experience, they argue, is to implement
course-based research experiences in required courses, beginning at the introductory level.
This article presents an analysis of the impact of implementing a novel type of CURE
across the biology curriculum at one public historically black university (HBCU) as part of
a project funded through an external grant. The project is described in greater detail in a
separate article [
2
]. Faculty members in the biology department had introduced CUREs
individually into their courses prior to receiving the grant, but the grant project supported
them in implementing new collaborative, community-focused, course-based undergraduate
research experiences (C
3
UREs). C
3
UREs in this department included a community focus
through a partnership with a local nonprofit organization working to restore a polluted
local river ecosystem. These C
3
UREs provided students with authentic research experiences
that involved river field trips to sample soil, water, microorganisms, plants, and animals,
carry out their own research, and present results. The C
3
UREs were also collaborations
among faculty members teaching courses at different levels of the biology curriculum, such
that students would experience similar topics from multiple perspectives.
This article responds, in part, to the call from Flowers [
3
] for more research on the
impact of student participation in CUREs at HBCUs; he observes that “it is clear that the
majority of the current studies on the effects of CURE outcomes focus on non-HBCUs” [
3
]
(p. 35). He argues further that, in a context of “prodigious financial challenges
. . .
CUREs
represent a fiscally responsible and sustainable pedagogical approach to involve many
STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] undergraduate students in
authentic research”. In addition, Flowers supports a model of CUREs implemented across
multiple courses within a curriculum. “The multi-course approach is more complicated
and requires departmental cooperation and expertise; however, the multi-course system is
helpful because it reflects the graduate school and workforce research environment” [
3
]
(p. 36).
Our project also included a community focus to add to the authentic research ex-
perience of participating students. Barbanell and colleagues [
4
] argue that “using local
examples has advantages because it builds on the students’ existing knowledge of their
campus or city and shows them how they can be active participants within those communi-
ties. There are also disadvantages to using a place-based approach.
. . .
it was difficult to
determine whether the students were able to transfer the knowledge gained about their
local communities to more general principles or to a larger geographic scale” [4] (p. 195).
The manifesto, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action [
5
],
presents “action items aimed at ensuring that the vision of the conference becomes an
agenda for change” [
5
] (p. xiv). One of those action items is to “Ensure that all under-
graduates have authentic opportunities to experience the processes, nature, and limits of
science” [
5
] (p. xv). One example of putting this approach into practice is the introduction
of community-based participatory research (CBPR) into the curriculum. Vision and Change
reports on one case study from Montana and notes that CBPR provides hands-on learning
opportunities for undergraduates, develops community-based expertise in risk assess-
ment and testing methodologies, and ensures the incorporation of local environmental
knowledge and the use of culturally appropriate strategies in all phases of the research [
5
]
(pp. 37–38).
Malotky and colleagues [
6
] describe a collaboration between two institutions and
across disciplines to offer a CURE focused on health disparities that also incorporated
“community-engaged learning (CEL), where students participate in community-centered
projects prompting them to reflect on the broader economic, social, and political contexts of
a problem”. Research projects developed in the course were inspired by needs expressed
in the community, and the course also explicitly addressed cultural competence. The
collaboration in this case was between an HBCU and a predominantly white institution
(PWI). They conclude that “the addition of CEL to a CURE course model can create an
inclusive environment that positively impacts students’ perceptions of science, their value
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3980
of and respect for diverse individuals, and potentially leads to greater recruitment and
retention of underrepresented populations in STEM” [6] (p. 2).
This article examines the available evidence to answer five research questions about
the outcomes of our project, intentionally stated as questions rather than hypotheses:
1.
Did the proportion of biology majors completing CUREs change over time? What pro-
portion of biology majors completed C
3
UREs? How many completed more than one?
2.
Did measures of science identity and belonging change as the project progressed? Did
the measures vary by student characteristics?
3.
Did the measures of identity and belonging differ depending on participation in
CUREs? With participation in C3UREs?
4. Did participation in CUREs or C3UREs affect the persistence of biology majors?
5.
Did the proportion of biology graduates pursuing further education or careers in
science change over time? Is there a relationship between participation in CUREs or
C3UREs and post-graduation outcomes for biology graduates?
We present these as research questions because our assessment was not initially
conceived as an educational research study, and we developed the assessment methods as
the project evolved. This analysis therefore presents a retrospective assessment rather than
the results of hypothesis testing.
As we document in the sections that follow, we successfully implemented the new
C
3
UREs in courses throughout the undergraduate biology curriculum, beginning with
second-year courses, such that by the fall of 2020 more than half of upper-division biology
majors had completed more than one C
3
URE. We found that more of the students who
completed either CUREs or C
3
UREs graduated on time with a biology degree than those
who did not complete CUREs. And we concluded that most biology graduates do go on to
use their degrees in further education and/or careers in science or healthcare.
2. Materials and Methods
This analysis draws on multiple data sources:
Student administrative data: We used enrollment and demographic data supplied by
the university’s office of institutional research and registrar to identify and track the persis-
tence of biology majors and other characteristics, including student locality of residence,
course enrollment and grades, and degree completion.
Course data: Faculty members who participated in the grant project identified which
departmental courses included CUREs, distinguishing between traditional CUREs and
C
3
UREs. We coded each relevant course from fall 2015 through spring 2023 and then
matched with student enrollment data.
Student survey of goals and attitudes: The lead authors developed a student goals
and attitudes questionnaire, drawing from items and scales in the published research
literature on student success in STEM [
7
–
16
]. The initial questionnaire included basic items
on educational goals and career interest, attitude toward science, sense of belonging in
science, interest in authentic or relevant research, and specific items related to experiences
with the local river. Later versions of the questionnaire added items on students’ feeling of
“self-efficacy” in science, one item asking specifically about interest in scientific research
that helps the local community, and items drawn from published literature related to
college students’ attitudes toward the environment, since providing students with authentic
research experiences in environmental science had become one of the major emphases of
the project.
The analysis presented in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 focuses on survey scales measuring
students’ science identity and sense of belonging and is limited to biology majors who
responded to the survey. More details on the survey questionnaire, including source
citations and scale reliability statistics, are presented in the Supplementary Materials.
Career and educational outcomes data: We assembled informal data on the further
education and occupational outcomes of biology graduates, primarily through online
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3981
searches of LinkedIn, social media, and personal contacts with department faculty members.
These data are described in more detail in Section 3.5 below.
The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board, and respon-
dents to the student survey provided informed consent, as described in the corresponding
sections at the end of the article.
3. Results
The presentation of results in this section corresponds to the research questions laid
out in Section 1.
3.1. Trend in CUREs Completed over Time
The grant project was initially funded in 2018, with the first new C
3
UREs offered in
spring 2019.
Figure 1shows the trend in the proportion of upper-division biology majors who com-
pleted CUREs, both traditional and C
3
UREs, from fall 2016 through fall 2022. Many faculty
members were already including traditional CUREs in their courses at the beginning of this
period, so that more than half (57%) of majors had completed at least one CURE as of fall
2016, although only 20% had completed more than one CURE at that point. However, prior
to the introduction of C
3
UREs, each faculty member designed their CUREs independently.
One reason for implementing the collaborative C
3
UREs was that faculty members observed
that students often did not see the connection between CUREs completed as part of one
course and either the subject matter of other courses or the research skills they might
employ in their future careers.
Trends High. Educ. 2024, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 5
Figure 1. Proportion of Biology Majors Completing CUREs, by Type and Frequency, 2016–2022.
3.2. Survey Scale Scores on Identity and Belonging
As noted above, we surveyed students in biology courses using a goals and aitudes
questionnaire consisting of items and scales in the published research literature on student
success in STEM. The questionnaire and the survey process are described in detail in the
supplementary materials. The questionnaire was distributed over four academic years to
students in upper-division courses that were part of the grant project and also to students
in the introductory course for majors. Even so, some of the students who responded to the
survey were not biology majors, and not all biology majors completed the questionnaire.
Supplementary Table S2 indicates that 83% of the 664 survey respondents were biology
majors, and 35% of biology majors completed a questionnaire. Table S3 then compares
survey respondents and non-respondents among biology majors only in order to establish
whether the survey respondents can reasonably be viewed as representative of all biology
majors during this period.
As indicated in Table S3, a large majority of survey respondents were African Amer-
ican women, similar to the proportion among all biology majors. African American men
were somewhat overrepresented among the fall 2021 respondents. The survey respond-
ents differed from all majors in terms of class standing, primarily because we were much
more successful in encouraging responses among students in upper-division courses
taught by grant project faculty members. As a consequence, we include class standing as
part of the analysis for all of the survey scales reported in this section.
Nearly all survey respondents were enrolled full-time, and a small proportion (5–
10%) were transfer students. Although Table S3 shows some statistically significant
Figure 1. Proportion of Biology Majors Completing CUREs, by Type and Frequency, 2016–2022.
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3982
The proportion of biology majors completing at least one CURE was already 80% by
fall 2017, although it was not until fall 2018 that more than half of biology majors had
completed more than one CURE. Faculty members participating in the grant project first
offered C
3
UREs in spring 2019, and they quickly became the dominant type of CURE that
majors completed. By the fall of 2020, 84% of biology majors had completed at least one
C3URE, and more than half had completed more than one.
We should note that the C
3
UREs completed during spring 2020, all of 2020–2021, and
the fall of 2021, were what we have categorized as “COVID-19 C
3
UREs”. Due to pandemic
safety precautions, students could not travel as a group on field trips to the river to collect
samples or make observations in person during this time. Instead, they completed research
projects using samples collected previously or by their faculty members traveling to the
river alone, with the students completing their observations or data analysis remotely.
During this time, one faculty member utilized a theoretical approach whereby students
applied the scientific method to investigate a hypothetical mutant organism that might
help remediate the local river.
3.2. Survey Scale Scores on Identity and Belonging
As noted above, we surveyed students in biology courses using a goals and attitudes
questionnaire consisting of items and scales in the published research literature on student
success in STEM. The questionnaire and the survey process are described in detail in the
Supplementary Materials. The questionnaire was distributed over four academic years to
students in upper-division courses that were part of the grant project and also to students
in the introductory course for majors. Even so, some of the students who responded to the
survey were not biology majors, and not all biology majors completed the questionnaire.
Supplementary Table S2 indicates that 83% of the 664 survey respondents were biology
majors, and 35% of biology majors completed a questionnaire. Table S3 then compares
survey respondents and non-respondents among biology majors only in order to establish
whether the survey respondents can reasonably be viewed as representative of all biology
majors during this period.
As indicated in Table S3, a large majority of survey respondents were African American
women, similar to the proportion among all biology majors. African American men were
somewhat overrepresented among the fall 2021 respondents. The survey respondents
differed from all majors in terms of class standing, primarily because we were much more
successful in encouraging responses among students in upper-division courses taught by
grant project faculty members. As a consequence, we include class standing as part of the
analysis for all of the survey scales reported in this section.
Nearly all survey respondents were enrolled full-time, and a small proportion (5–10%)
were transfer students. Although Table S3 shows some statistically significant differences
between survey respondents and non-respondents on these two characteristics, the dif-
ferences are small enough not to indicate a substantive distinction. In sum, the survey
respondents were quite similar to biology majors overall, so we can have confidence in the
relevance of survey results for our research questions.
Figure 2shows the mean scores for upper-division biology majors on four scales
included in the survey questionnaire, all of which were scored on a scale of 1 to 4. The
scales reflect the students’ science identity, their overall sense of belonging or inclusion,
their sense of belonging in STEM specifically, and a further measure of student perception
of the importance of inclusion. The scales are described in more detail in the Supplementary
Materials, including references to the original source items.
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3983
Trends High. Educ. 2024, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 6
differences between survey respondents and non-respondents on these two characteris-
tics, the differences are small enough not to indicate a substantive distinction. In sum, the
survey respondents were quite similar to biology majors overall, so we can have confi-
dence in the relevance of survey results for our research questions.
Figure 2 shows the mean scores for upper-division biology majors on four scales in-
cluded in the survey questionnaire, all of which were scored on a scale of 1 to 4. The scales
reflect the students’ science identity, their overall sense of belonging or inclusion, their
sense of belonging in STEM specifically, and a further measure of student perception of
the importance of inclusion. The scales are described in more detail in the supplementary
materials, including references to the original source items.
Figure 2. Survey scale scores for upper-division majors, 2019–2022.
Figure 2 shows essentially no change on any of these scale scores over the course of
the project. Although we did not state an explicit hypothesis that students would feel a
stronger sense of belonging or inclusion as a result of the project, this lack of change in
scale scores is not the result we would have expected.
Table 1 explores potential variations in mean scale scores for each of the four aca-
demic years and then pools all of the responses together. Three potential sources of vari-
ation are presented for each measure, with results of separate bivariate significance tests
for each. The table first shows the mean scores for first-year respondents compared with
those for upper-division respondents and then displays the results of significance tests for
differences by student enrollment status (full-time vs. part-time) and local origin in the
region near the university.
Figure 2. Survey scale scores for upper-division majors, 2019–2022.
Figure 2shows essentially no change on any of these scale scores over the course of
the project. Although we did not state an explicit hypothesis that students would feel a
stronger sense of belonging or inclusion as a result of the project, this lack of change in
scale scores is not the result we would have expected.
Table 1explores potential variations in mean scale scores for each of the four academic
years and then pools all of the responses together. Three potential sources of variation are
presented for each measure, with results of separate bivariate significance tests for each.
The table first shows the mean scores for first-year respondents compared with those for
upper-division respondents and then displays the results of significance tests for differences
by student enrollment status (full-time vs. part-time) and local origin in the region near
the university.
Upper-division respondents did score higher on the basic science identity scale in two
of the four survey iterations and in the pooled responses from all four academic years.
Similarly, upper-division respondents had a higher mean score on the sense of belonging
in STEM scale for two of four years and in the pooled responses. Differences by class
standing did not emerge for either of the other two scales. Enrollment status did not
produce measurable differences in survey responses on these scales, and being from the
local region resulted in only one significant difference on the sense of belonging in STEM
scale for only one survey round, but not in the pooled responses across all four years. We
had anticipated that the community focus of the C
3
UREs implemented through the project
might resonate more strongly with students from the region, but that was not reflected in
these scale scores.
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3984
Table 1. Survey scale scores for majors, by class standing, enrollment status, and local origin,
2019–2022.
Class Standing
Enrollment Status
No. Mean First-Year Upper Division Sig Local
Fall 2019
Science identity 173 3.39 3.17 3.44 * ns ns
Overall sense of belonging/inclusion 172 3.44 3.37 3.46 ns ns ns
Sense of belonging in STEM 173 3.43 3.28 3.47 * ns ns
Importance of inclusion 173 3.55 3.49 3.57 ns ns ns
AY 2020–2021
Science identity 113 3.39 3.13 3.42 * ns ns
Overall sense of belonging/inclusion 121 3.40 3.49 3.39 ns ns ns
Sense of belonging in STEM 121 3.41 3.31 3.43 ns ns ns
Importance of inclusion 120 3.60 3.67 3.59 ns ns ns
Fall 2021
Science identity 153 3.35 3.27 3.40 ns ns ns
Overall sense of belonging/inclusion 160 3.36 3.48 3.29 ns ns ns
Sense of belonging in STEM 160 3.23 3.07 3.33 * ns *
Importance of inclusion 161 3.56 3.54 3.57 ns ns ns
Fall 2022
Science identity 92 3.38 3.29 3.43 ns ns ns
Overall sense of belonging/inclusion 97 3.40 3.46 3.36 ns ns ns
Sense of belonging in STEM 97 3.32 3.27 3.34 ns ns ns
Importance of inclusion 97 3.55 3.59 3.53 ns ns ns
Pooled responses
Science identity 531 3.38 3.24 3.42 * ns ns
Overall sense of belonging/inclusion 550 3.40 3.45 3.38 ns ns ns
Sense of belonging in STEM 551 3.35 3.20 3.40 * ns ns
Importance of inclusion 551 3.56 3.55 3.57 ns ns ns
Note: Statistical significance: * = p< 0.05; ns = not significant. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), difference
between groups.
3.3. CURE Completion and Survey Scale Scores
Our third research question considers whether completion of a CURE or a C
3
URE
affected biology majors’ scores on the survey scales related to science identity and belonging.
The short answer is “no”, so we summarize the result here only briefly and report the
detailed results in Supplemental Tables S4 and S5.
Tables S4 and S5 present mean scores on the four survey scales for upper-division
biology majors only. We limit the analysis to upper-division majors because first-year
biology students did not, for the most part, enroll in courses that included either CUREs
or C
3
UREs. Recall from Figure 1that most upper-division biology majors had completed
more than one traditional CURE even before the grant project began. However, at the time
of our first survey of student attitudes and goals in fall 2019, only 22% of upper-division
biology majors had completed more than one of the new integrated C3UREs.
Even so, across all four survey scales and the four academic years of survey admin-
istration, there was only one instance where the scale scores were statistically different
between majors who had completed a CURE or C
3
URE and those who had not. That
one instance was in fall 2019 on the importance of inclusion scale among majors who had
completed more than one CURE (Table S4)—although the same difference did not emerge
at that time with completion of C
3
UREs (the one statistically significant difference was also
not in the anticipated direction, with the respondents who had completed more than one
CURE scoring lower on the inclusion scale).
Coupled with the results described in the preceding section, it appears that the in-
troduction of C
3
UREs into the biology curriculum as part of our project did not produce
changes in students’ measured science identity or sense of belonging. We explore some of
the reasons why that may be the case in the discussion section.
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3985
3.4. CURE Completion and Persistence
In this section, we take up the question of whether completion of either CUREs or
C
3
UREs had a measurable impact on the persistence of biology majors through completion
of a bachelor’s degree. Figure 3displays outcomes for sophomore biology majors in
five successive fall semesters, spanning a period from before the introduction of C
3
UREs
through the effective end of our grant-funded project.
Trends High. Educ. 2024, 3, FOR PEER REVIEW 9
possible that other factors for which we do not have information could have impacted
these students’ progression to graduation.
Figure 3. Survey Scale Scores for Upper-Division Majors, 2019–2022.
3.5. CURE Completion and Post-Graduation Outcomes
One of the objectives of our project was to encourage biology graduates to pursue
further education and/or employment that would build on their degree. We knew anec-
dotally before the project that biology students were most often interested in healthcare
careers, and we were able to confirm this through the goals and aitudes survey described
in previous sections. At the same time, we were concerned that some students did not
pursue science or healthcare careers after graduation. We wanted them to learn about
other potential career and educational paths in the sciences as well as in healthcare that
might enable them to make use of their degree. Providing the new C
3
UREs involving au-
thentic research experiences was one part of that effort.
In order to assess progress in moving our students toward a variety of potential post-
graduation pursuits related to science or healthcare, we needed to determine what stu-
dents did after leaving the biology program, both in terms of further education and em-
ployment. We first explored existing data collections on post-graduation outcomes of
alumni and learned that the university had carried out a graduate exit survey on a more
or less annual basis. However, after viewing results from the 2019 survey and requesting
further information, we were told that results were not available for specific majors and
the survey response rate was low. We also had several discussions during the project con-
cerning the department’s own “graduate exit interview” or survey form that graduates
Figure 3. Survey Scale Scores for Upper-Division Majors, 2019–2022.
Figure 3presents only the proportion of fall sophomores who graduated from the
university with a BS degree in biology on time, defined as no later than the summer
following their scheduled senior year. The sets of columns indicate whether majors had
completed any CURE, more than one CURE, any C
3
URE, and more than one C
3
URE. In
each case, the proportion graduating on time is higher among the students who completed
some number of CURE(s) or C
3
URE (s) than among students not completing that number of
CURE(s) or C
3
URE (s) (The differences are statistically significant, with one exception. Note
that the difference tested with chi-square is between completing the designated number
of CURE(s) or C
3
URE(s) and not completing that number; it does not test the difference
between types of CUREs. See Table S6 for more detail on all outcomes for fall sophomores).
The highest completion rates shown in the figure were for fall 2018 sophomores, who
would have graduated on time in spring or summer of 2021. Those students were well
into their junior years when the project and the C
3
UREs were disrupted by precautions
related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The sophomores in the two succeeding years, however,
experienced that COVID disruption earlier in their programs, and with greater effect on
graduation rates.
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3986
Table S6 presents the full set of potential outcomes, including later completion of a
university biology degree; completion of another university bachelor’s degree; continued
enrollment at the university without completing a degree; and stopping out, defined as no
longer enrolled at the university and not having completed a university degree.
In sum, this analysis of CURE completion and graduation does indicate that a higher
proportion of those students who completed either CUREs or C
3
UREs did graduate on
time with a biology degree than those who did not complete CUREs. It is important to
note, however, that we cannot directly demonstrate a causal relationship; it is entirely
possible that other factors for which we do not have information could have impacted these
students’ progression to graduation.
3.5. CURE Completion and Post-Graduation Outcomes
One of the objectives of our project was to encourage biology graduates to pursue
further education and/or employment that would build on their degree. We knew anec-
dotally before the project that biology students were most often interested in healthcare
careers, and we were able to confirm this through the goals and attitudes survey described
in previous sections. At the same time, we were concerned that some students did not
pursue science or healthcare careers after graduation. We wanted them to learn about other
potential career and educational paths in the sciences as well as in healthcare that might
enable them to make use of their degree. Providing the new C
3
UREs involving authentic
research experiences was one part of that effort.
In order to assess progress in moving our students toward a variety of potential
post-graduation pursuits related to science or healthcare, we needed to determine what
students did after leaving the biology program, both in terms of further education and
employment. We first explored existing data collections on post-graduation outcomes
of alumni and learned that the university had carried out a graduate exit survey on a
more or less annual basis. However, after viewing results from the 2019 survey and
requesting further information, we were told that results were not available for specific
majors and the survey response rate was low. We also had several discussions during the
project concerning the department’s own “graduate exit interview” or survey form that
graduates should have completed as part of the graduation application process. Although
the department has tried to make this data collection more systematic, it did not provide
information suitable for use in this analysis.
The challenge of obtaining useful and comprehensive data on post-graduation out-
comes is not specific to this university. Two articles published by the Association for
Institutional Research in fall 2021 [
17
,
18
] described the multiple potential sources for post-
graduation outcomes data and the tradeoffs involved in each. Although there has been
some progress in making data more available since that time, it is still the responsibility of
each college or university to locate, analyze, and present relevant data, and the resources
available for that project vary considerably among institutions.
Having determined that other sources of post-graduation outcome data were not
feasible, the project team set out to compile the data ourselves as best we could. We created
a spreadsheet listing biology graduates going back several years and invited department
faculty members to enter any information they had into the spreadsheet; this process
continued over several years. In addition, the project director spent numerous hours
searching online—primarily using LinkedIn and social media sources—for information
about graduates’ further pursuits.
In preparation for this analysis, the lead author compiled all of this informal data in the
spring of 2024 and developed a basic coding scheme for both educational and occupational
outcomes of biology graduates. Table 2presents the consolidated results of that coding,
which is described in detail in the Supplemental Materials.
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3987
Table 2. Post-Graduation Outcomes for Biology Graduates.
Graduates Further Education or Employment Sector (%)
Year Graduated Number % with Outcome Science Healthcare Science/Healthcare Other
2009–2010 to 2012–2013
156 42 18.5 36.9 16.9 27.7
2013–2014 to 2016–2017
221 54 17.5 36.7 25.0 20.8
2017–2018 to 2019–2020
135 84 21.9 25.4 12.3 40.4
2020–2021 to 2022–2023
173 52 22.2 46.7 5.6 25.6
Notes: In addition to obvious outcomes, the “science” category includes veterinary medicine and wildlife, com-
puter science, mathematics, and exercise/sports science. Healthcare includes athletic trainers. Science/Healthcare
is for boundary situations, including “biomedical” and science in a healthcare setting, such as lab technicians.
Work in the insurance industry is included under “other”. “Other” includes ambiguous entries such as teaching
or military when no specialization is given.
The tabulation presented in Table 2should be considered “informal” on three levels:
First, we did not specify a data entry protocol for the information entered on graduates
on a rolling basis, so the entries were often incomplete or ambiguous. Second, most of the
entries were made at a single point in time, and the length of time elapsed since graduation
varied. In most cases, once there was an entry for a graduate, we did not go back and look
for later information on that person. Finally, the categorization into science, healthcare, and
“other” is relatively rudimentary and also combines further education with employment.
The extent to which we were able to compile post-graduation information also varied
tremendously by year, as the second column of Table 2indicates. We had entries for 84% of
graduates between 2017–2018 and 2019–2020, but for fewer than half of the other graduates
in the table.
Bearing all of those caveats in mind, Table 2suggests there was not a dramatic shift
in post-graduation outcomes during the project period. Healthcare was the primary
destination for graduates for most of the period included in the table. The very large
proportion of “other” outcomes for 2017–2018 to 2019–2020 graduates stands out; this was
also the group for which we compiled much more information. It may be that we located
more information on graduates from this cohort who pursued activities outside of science
or healthcare, whereas for other time periods our information was more limited to those
staying within those fields. The informal nature of the data makes it difficult to attribute
specific explanations with any great confidence.
Despite the informal nature of our data, Table 3presents a statistical check on whether
there appears to be any relationship between completing CUREs or C
3
UREs and post-
graduation outcomes. The table covers graduates from 2015–2016 through 2022–2023,
years for which we compiled data on CURE course completion, and includes only those
graduates for whom we had some outcome information. The outcome categories are
correspondingly consolidated further to “non-science” and “science or healthcare”.
Table 3. Post-Graduation Outcomes for Biology Graduates, by CURE completion.
Further Education or Employment (%)
All
Any CURE
More Than 1 CURE
Any C3CURE More Than 1 C3CURE
Non-science
30.7
33.2 30.3 28.7 25.8
Science or healthcare
69.3
66.8 69.7 71.3 74.2
N
277
220 175 122 89
Note: None of the differences by CURE completion in the table are statistically significant using a chi-square test
for relationship between two categorical variables (p< 0.05).
For the group of graduates included in Table 3, the stability of our outcome data is
even clearer: 31% of graduates pursued education or employment outside of science or
healthcare, and that proportion was essentially the same whether or not they had completed
CUREs or C
3
UREs. This would suggest that completing CUREs or C
3
UREs did not change
the post-graduation career paths of biology graduates.
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3988
4. Discussion
Once we got our project fully up and running, we restated our primary goal succinctly
as “to guide as many students as possible to graduation and ensure they enter STEM fields
for their career”. The analysis compiled above sheds some light on the extent to which we
achieved that overall goal.
•
We successfully implemented novel C
3
UREs in courses throughout the biology cur-
riculum, beginning with second-year courses, such that by the fall of 2020 more than
half of upper-division biology majors had completed more than one C
3
URE (Figure 1).
•
Our analysis of CURE completion and graduation does indicate that a higher propor-
tion of those students who completed either CUREs or C
3
UREs did graduate on time
with a biology degree than those who did not complete CUREs (Figure 3).
At least two components of the results discussed in Section 3deserve further explo-
ration, however: the finding that survey scale scores on identity and sense of belonging did
not change as a result of the implementation of C
3
UREs (Section 3.3) and the finding that
completion of CUREs or C
3
UREs did not make a difference in whether graduates pursued
further education or employment in science or healthcare after graduation (Section 3.5).
The following two sections shed further light on these two findings, and then Section 4.3
lays out some of the limitations of our analysis.
4.1. Science Identity and Sense of Belonging Did Not Change
We had anticipated that exposure to authentic research opportunities through C
3
UREs
might enhance biology students’ sense of belonging and identity as scientists. We did not
find that to be the case in the survey scale results we obtained (Sections 3.2 and 3.3). In this
section, we explore two potential explanations for this lack of change in measured attitudes:
the already relatively strong sense of belonging for African American students attending
an HBCU and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
One possible explanation for the lack of differences in scale scores with advancement
through the program is that African American students in our program developed a
relatively strong sense of belonging simply by choosing to attend an HBCU. As Nguyen and
Gasman [
19
] note in their recent study, “the rigid competition seen at majority institutions
that drives students of color into isolation was not evident at the HBCUs in our study. The
real competition entails supporting each other so that the entire class passes the course or
that all students are able to walk across that graduation stage”.
McCoy and colleagues [
20
] similarly found that undergraduate students of color
experienced their interaction with faculty members as markedly different at two institutions,
one HBCU and one PWI:
“Students attending the PWI described feeling as though faculty tried to weed
them out of their disciplines. The students at the PWI stated that faculty were
sometimes hard to reach, not open to their questions, and not particularly in-
terested in mentoring them professionally.
. . .
Students at the HBCU described
faculty as being open to their questions and integral in creating professional
opportunities (e.g., internships) for them”. [20] (p. 663)
Our biology students, like other students in STEM at HBCUs, may not have expe-
rienced the lack of belonging or “imposter syndrome” that has proven challenging for
students of color—and especially African American women—pursuing STEM degree pro-
grams at predominantly white institutions. Thus, the apparent lack of change in survey
scales measuring their experiences after implementation of C
3
UREs may reflect an already
relatively positive environment.
We cannot ignore the reality that most of our project period was disrupted by the
precautions necessary during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which significantly
impacted three academic years (2019–2020 through 2021–2022). During most of this period,
students could not go into the field to collect samples or carry out observations themselves,
and even their in-person lab time was limited or reorganized into smaller groups (not to
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3989
mention the climate of uncertainty throughout that time, as precautions were implemented
and changed with each semester, and the tremendous loss and hardship experienced by
our students and campus community, directly and indirectly, as a result of this generational
tragedy). As we reflect on that period now, we might have expected that students’ sense
of belonging, in particular, would have slumped during the pandemic—yet that was not
the case.
Research on the impact of the pandemic on student experiences and persistence is
only now beginning to emerge, and it may be quite some time before the full impact is
apparent. Analyses that include direct measures before and after the pandemic are still
relatively rare, since the onset of COVID-19 was sudden and unexpected. The research
literature on pandemic-related changes in student sense of belonging is decidedly limited
and presents mixed results.
Fletcher and colleagues [
21
] reported results from a single survey of faculty, staff, and
students at HBCUs early in the pandemic. They found that, “Overall, 59% of engineering
students reported that being away from campus had negatively affected their sense of
belonging to their HBCU” [
21
] (p. 501). Among all students responding to their survey,
including STEM and non-STEM students, 57% reported a negative effect. Their finding is
severely limited, however, since it was a one-time survey early in the pandemic and the 171
respondents were recruited by snowball sampling across multiple campuses and therefore
cannot be confirmed as a representative sample.
Barringer and colleagues [
22
] already had an ongoing study of prescription drug
misuse among students at one large (predominantly white) university when the pandemic
struck. They adapted their procedures somewhat to measure changes in student sense of
belonging as a result of the pandemic, although their data collection continued only until
fall 2020. They found that “self-rated sense of belonging decreased among racial-ethnic
minority participants but not among those who identified as white, non-Hispanic” [
22
] (p.
1315). The racial-ethnic minority participants in their study were predominantly Asian or
Hispanic/Latino, and their results are not presented separately by racial categories since
those categories were small in their data.
Kelly and colleagues [
23
] found that students’ sense of belonging was lower overall
during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on surveys in 2019 and 2021 at one regional uni-
versity in Australia; they note that students there were still attending classes remotely in
2021. They also discussed the varying findings on this topic across numerous studies, due
to differences in timing and measures used, student populations, and varying pandemic
precautions across countries.
In sum, while we might have expected measurements of students’ identity as scientists
and sense of belonging and inclusion to change positively as a result of their participation
in authentic research experiences, there may be at least two reasons why that is not what
we found. As African Americans who chose to attend an HBCU, our students may have
experienced a strong sense of belonging from the moment of their arrival on campus. In
addition, in retrospect, we might have expected that sense of belonging to decline as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic disruptions; the finding that the measures remained
relatively stable might actually reflect positively on the implementation of C3UREs.
4.2. Careers in Science or Healthcare After Graduation
On the basis of limited data, we did not find that completion of CUREs or C
3
UREs
made a difference in whether graduates from our program pursued further education or
employment in science or healthcare after graduation (Section 3.5). The most common
path among those graduates for whom we have information was and is healthcare, and a
majority of graduates do pursue careers in either science or healthcare after graduation.
Table 3above documents that 69% of the biology graduates for whom we have
information had or were pursuing further education or employment in science or healthcare.
To get a sense of whether that proportion matches the experiences of other programs, we
reviewed two studies specifically related to undergraduate research experiences (UREs).
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3990
Hernandez and colleagues [
24
] were able to follow a set of undergraduate science
majors, predominantly African American or Latino(a), from 29 US colleges across 10 years,
beginning in their junior year [
24
] (p. 205). However, the focus of their study was specifically
on UREs that were not part of required courses. They found that participation in “long-
term, high-intensity UREs” resulted in a much greater likelihood of earning a baccalaureate
degree in the sciences, being accepted into a science-related graduate program, and/or
being engaged in a scientific career or advanced scientific career training six years after
graduation [
24
] (pp. 208–209). On the basis of the Supplementary Materials they provide, it
appears that 35% of students who participated in UREs later engaged in a scientific career,
while 23% of those without URE pursued a scientific career.
Junge and colleagues [
25
] published an outcomes assessment of the summer under-
graduate research experience (SURE) program at Emory University. One component of
their assessment was a survey of 1999–2004 program participants carried out in spring 2005.
They report that one half (50%) of survey respondents were employed and another 31%
were enrolled in graduate school [
25
] (Table 5, p. 126). Among those who were employed,
84% stated that their position was in a science field; the table does not specify whether
graduate study was in science.
Neither of these two studies involved a program similar to our C
3
UREs, and they
produced widely divergent results. Further, our findings are not really comparable since
the definitions of outcomes we used differed substantially from those used in the two
studies cited.
As a further benchmark for the post-graduation outcomes we tabulated for our gradu-
ates, Table S7 compiles national data for biology graduates as of 2019. Looking specifically
at graduates with only a bachelor’s degree, a majority (57% of women and 53% of men)
were employed in healthcare or STEM occupations, with healthcare slightly more frequent
for women. The table does not include information on graduates who were currently en-
rolled in further study, however. The 69% of graduates in our study employed or pursuing
further education in science or healthcare (Table 3) is likely in line with these national
figures when further education is taken into account.
4.3. Limitations of Our Analysis
One of the challenges with a project such as this focused primarily on a curriculum
reform is the length of time required to establish whether the changes we introduced made
an impact. The project began during the 2018–2019 academic year, with planning and
initial C
3
URE course offerings, and this analysis looks at outcomes through the 2022–2023
academic year. In other words, the analysis covers five academic years, during which we
planned and implemented C
3
UREs (and other inclusive learning elements not directly
addressed here), developed our assessment methods, built collaborations outside of the
biology department, and then tracked students through graduation and (informally) into
further education and employment.
•
Most of the students tracked in this analysis only had access to C
3
UREs during part of
their biology program. The students who completed more than one C
3
URE have only
progressed to on-time graduation in the past two academic years.
•
The limited, informal data we have on post-graduation outcomes for the students who
completed C3UREs extend only a year or two beyond their bachelor’s degrees.
Another significant limitation of this analysis is that the project was not originally
set up as an educational research study. It was conceived and developed as a curriculum
innovation and collaboration with a community partner, with both elements oriented
toward providing students with more authentic research experiences to stimulate their
interest in pursuing careers in STEM. It was only after the project was already under way
that we recognized the need for more formalized assessment of its outcomes. At that point,
we had to develop and implement procedures for obtaining data, carrying out a student
survey, and determining as a team what analysis would be useful. Although we compiled
data and examined results throughout the project period, the analysis presented here is
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3991
really our first attempt at a comprehensive assessment of the project’s quantifiable student
outcomes.
5. Conclusions
In sum, although the results of this analysis are not what we might have expected,
it does appear that the introduction of collaborative, community-focused C
3
UREs as the
primary innovation within a curriculum reform project did bolster graduation rates during
an extremely challenging time. And we found some limited assurance that most biology
graduates do go on to use their degrees in careers in science or healthcare, assuaging one
of the primary concerns that motivated this project in the first place. Going forward, we
take great satisfaction in knowing that students participating at any stage of the biology
curriculum will receive hands-on experience with novel, field-relevant research.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/higheredu3040057/s1. Table S1. Biology Majors Completing
CUREs, by type and frequency, 2016–2022. Survey description and citations; copy of the questionnaire.
Table S2. Major of student survey respondents (scales on identity and belonging). Table S3. Basic
characteristics of biology major survey respondents compared with all biology majors. Table S4.
Scale scores by completion of CUREs, upper division respondents only. Table S5. Scale scores
by completion of C3UREs, Upper division respondents only. Table S6. Enrollment Outcomes for
Sophomore Biology Majors, by CURE Completion, Fall 2016–2020. Table S7. Occupational Category
of US Biology Graduates, by Gender and Educational Attainment, 2019.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.W.C. and A.N.H.; Methods, J.W.C. and A.N.H.; Formal
analysis, J.W.C.; Data curation, J.W.C.; Writing—original draft preparation, J.W.C.; Writing—review
and editing, J.W.C., A.N.H. and N.B.; Project administration, A.N.H.; Funding acquisition, A.N.H.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Howard Hughes Medical Institute, grant number GT11060.
The APC was funded by Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was approved by the Norfolk State University
Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, IRB #18-043 on 11 August 2019.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
student survey, as stipulated in the NSU IRB approval. The consent form is included as part of the
survey questionnaire in the Supplementary Materials.
Data Availability Statement: The underlying data analyzed in this article are not available for
distribution, as most of them contain personally-identifying information, and our team does not have
sufficient capacity to create a deidentified dataset. In addition, the data are specific to the context of
our project and are likely not generalizable. Data may be made available from the corresponding
author on request.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge and thank our additional project team members for
their contributions throughout the project period: Malikah Abdullah-Israel, Stephen M. Via, Kathryn F.
Simmons, and Joseph D’Silva. In addition, we acknowledge the tremendous support and intellectual
stimulation provided by our colleagues at peer institutions organized through the funding agency:
James Madison University, The College of New Jersey, and Virginia Commonwealth University.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study, in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Bangera, G.; Brownell, S.E. Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Can Make Scientific Research More Inclusive.
CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2014,13, 602–606. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Barekzi, N.; Via, S.; D’Silva, J.; Abdullah-Israel, M.; Curtis, J.W.; Haines, A.N. Collaborative Community CURE: Advantages and
Disadvantages. 2024, in preparation. (Correspondence to Nazir Barekzi, Biology Department, Norfolk State University, Norfolk,
VA, USA.).
Trends High. Educ. 2024,3992
3. Flowers, L. Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences at HBCUs. J. Educ. Soc. Policy 2021,8, 33–38.
4.
Barbanell, E.; Jarchow, M.; Ritter, J. Using Ecosystem Services to Engage Students in Public Dialogue About Water Resources.
In Interdisciplinary Teaching About Earth and the Environment for a Sustainable Future; Gosselin, D.C., Egger, A.E., Taber, J.J., Eds.;
Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 179–196, ISBN 9783030032739.
5.
Bauerle, C.M.; American Association for the Advancement of Science; National Science Foundation (U.S.). Vision and Change in
Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action: Final Report of a National Conference; American Association for the Advancement
of Science: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; ISBN 9780871687418.
6.
Malotky, M.K.H.; Mayes, K.M.; Price, K.M.; Smith, G.; Mann, S.N.; Guinyard, M.W.; Veale, S.; Ksor, V.; Siu, L.; Mlo, H.; et al.
Fostering Inclusion through an Interinstitutional, Community-Engaged, Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience. J.
Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 2020,21, 11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Hurtado, S.; Carter, D.F. Effects of College Transition and Perceptions of the Campus Racial Climate on Latino College Students’
Sense of Belonging. Sociol. Educ. 1997,70, 324–345. [CrossRef]
8.
Good, C.; Rattan, A.; Dweck, C.S. Why Do Women Opt out? Sense of Belonging and Women’s Representation in Mathematics. J.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2012,102, 700–717. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Trujillo, G.; Tanner, K.D. Considering the Role of Affect in Learning: Monitoring Students’ Self-Efficacy, Sense of Belonging, and
Science Identity. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2014,13, 6–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10.
Stout, J.G.; Ito, T.A.; Finkelstein, N.D.; Pollock, S.J. How a Gender Gap in Belonging Contributes to the Gender Gap in Physics
Participation; AIP Publishing: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 402–405.
11.
Sathy, V.; Hogan, K.A. How to Make Your Teaching More Inclusive; Chronicle of Higher Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2019;
Volume 22.
12.
Grinnell College Classroom Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) Survey. Post-Course Survey Questionnaire. Available
online: https://sure.sites.grinnell.edu/cure-survey/ (accessed on 7 June 2024).
13.
Chemers, M.M.; Zurbriggen, E.L.; Syed, M.; Goza, B.K.; Bearman, S. The Role of Efficacy and Identity in Science Career
Commitment Among Underrepresented Minority Students: Efficacy and Identity in Science Career Commitment. J. Soc. Issues
2011,67, 469–491. [CrossRef]
14.
Laursen, S.; Hunter, A.-B.; Seymour, E.; Thiry, H.; Melton, G. Undergraduate Research in the Sciences: Engaging Students in Real
Science; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 9780470625637.
15.
Flowers, S.K.; Beyer, K.M.; Pérez, M.; Jeffe, D.B. Early Environmental Field Research Career Exploration: An Analysis of Impacts
on Precollege Apprentices. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 2016,15, ar67. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Quimby, J.L.; Seyala, N.D.; Wolfson, J.L. Social Cognitive Predictors of Interest in Environmental Science: Recommendations for
Environmental Educators. J. Environ. Educ. 2007,38, 43–52. [CrossRef]
17. Bryant, M. Using State Workforce Data to Report Graduate Outcomes. AIR Prof. File 2021,2021, 154. [CrossRef]
18.
Aguayo, G.J.; Milner, J. Data Sources for Post-Graduation Outcomes. Available online: https://www.airweb.org/article/2021/0
9/23/data-sources-for-post-graduation-outcomes (accessed on 6 June 2024).
19.
Nguyen, T.-H.; Gasman, M. Family Matters: The Culture of STEM at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Teach.
Educ. 2024,59, 380–398. [CrossRef]
20.
McCoy, D.L.; Luedke, C.L.; Winkle-Wagner, R. Encouraged or Weeded Out: Perspectives of Students of Color in the STEM
Disciplines on Faculty Interactions. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2017,58, 657–673. [CrossRef]
21.
Fletcher, T.L.; Jefferson, J.P.; Boyd, B.; Park, S.E.; Crumpton-Young, L. Impact of COVID-19 on Sense of Belonging: Experiences of
Engineering Students, Faculty, and Staff at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUS). J. Eng. Edu. 2023,112, 488–520.
[CrossRef]
22.
Barringer, A.; Papp, L.M.; Gu, P. College Students’ Sense of Belonging in Times of Disruption: Prospective Changes from before
to during the COVID-19 Pandemic. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2023,42, 1309–1322. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23.
Kelly, M.L.; Nieuwoudt, J.; Willis, R.; Lee, M.F. Belonging, Enjoyment, Motivation, and Retention: University Students’ Sense of
Belonging Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Coll. Stud. Retent. Res. Theory Pract. 2024. [CrossRef]
24.
Hernandez, P.R.; Woodcock, A.; Estrada, M.; Schultz, P.W. Undergraduate Research Experiences Broaden Diversity in the Scientific
Workforce. BioScience 2018,68, 204–211. [CrossRef]
25.
Junge, B.; Quiñones, C.; Kakietek, J.; Teodorescu, D.; Marsteller, P. Promoting Undergraduate Interest, Preparedness, and
Professional Pursuit in the Sciences: An Outcomes Evaluation of the SURE Program at Emory University. CBE—Life Sci. Educ.
2010,9, 119–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
