Bee The CURE: Increasing Student Science Self-Efficacy, Science Identity, and Predictors of Scientific Civic Engagement in a Community College CURE

INTRODUCTION

In the past 10 years, our society has faced some of the most complex and vast social challenges ever encountered. We have faced devastating wildfires on multiple continents and across numerous landscapes (e.g., Kobziar et al., 2022; Lindenmayer et al., 2023; Misal, 2023). Researchers, governments, agencies, and businesses have stood together to innovate vaccines and distribute them across the globe in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Castonguay et al., 2023; Gomes et al., 2023). “Forever chemicals” that are present in water systems that cross jurisdictional boundaries have been identified and international collaborations have begun to address mitigation practices (Jha et al., 2021; Suran, 2022; Wee and Aris, 2023). These challenges have several things in common: they are complex, they are global, and they require solutions that are both scientifically sound and socially integrated. These socio-scientific issues (SSIs) have required scientists to work quickly and carefully at the interface of science and society (Dressel, 2022; Scheufele, 2022). Given the acceleration in the connectivity of our world and global impacts, we can only anticipate that complex socioscientific challenges will continue to arise, and that we – as educators – will need to equip our students with the skills to work with communities on scientific issues (Simonneaux, 2013; López-Fernández et al., 2022; Sparks et al., 2022).

Equipping our students with the skills to handle these problems will not be a simple task. It will require teaching students how to grapple with uncertainty and complexity (e.g., Bolger et al., 2021), elucidating both the scientific and social aspects of socioscientific issues in our classrooms (e.g., Sadler, 2011; Dauer et al., 2017; Hewitt et al., 2019), equipping students with analytical tools to evaluate complex problems (e.g., Hoskinson et al., 2013), and considering cultural impacts and collaborating with members of impacted communities to design solutions (e.g., Dalbotten et al., 2014) among other skills. Indeed, equipping our students to tackle these problems is complex, and we are fortunate that education researchers are tackling many aspects of this goal, as evidenced by the work cited above. An important gap that we address in this work is the need for scientists who can work with many communities including those that have been and are underserved (reviewed in Dunbar-Wallis et al., 2024, e.g., Denson, 2017; Michel et al., 2021) or excluded (e.g., Persons Excluded because of Ethnicity or Race, PEER, as defined by Asai, 2020; Hispanic and Latino workers are 18% of US workforce but only 14% of STEM workers with only 8% of that workforce holding a bachelor's degree or higher; NSF, 2021). We refer to individuals of these groups as “underserved” in STEM throughout this work to reflect that STEM fields and programs have fallen short of addressing the needs of these groups. Multiple calls and frameworks recognize that it is often members of these same communities who shine as scientists equipped to work with varied communities and center the needs of underserved and frequently excluded groups when tackling complex SSIs (e.g., Dalbotten et al., 2014; Tamburini et al., 2023). Thus, we should strive to recruit and retain these students in STEM fields.

Coincidentally, students of these same communities may be best served by education focused on pro-social outcomes which give back to the community (Harackiewicz et al., 2014; Allen et al., 2015). Several studies support the assertion that PEERs and first-generation college students are motivated to act and persist in a pursuit if it has a clear pro-social purpose (Weisgram and Bigler, 2006; Diekman et al., 2011; Diekman et al., 2015; Jackson et al., 2016). Further, students from demographics that prioritize collectivist values (e.g., values that prioritize the group rather than the individual; Hofstede, 2001) are more likely to engage with STEM for altruistic reasons (reviewed in Estrada et al., 2016). Students from underserved groups are frequently drawn to prosocial pursuits because many of them are motivated to return to their communities and help their families (Smith et al., 2014; Jackson et al., 2016), have a strong social (as opposed to egotistical) goal orientation (Diekman et al., 2011), and have a sense of identity that is aligned with helping others (Weisgram and Bigler, 2006). Further, students from these groups often express that one reason they leave STEM majors is because they perceive conflict between their STEM major and their prosocial goals (Holland et al., 2019, pp 337–345, Ch 10). It follows that involving students in STEM courses which actively seek to demonstrate the prosocial value of a science career may increase STEM retention specifically for students from historically excluded groups. We see evidence of this in classes that contextualize learned skills beyond the classroom for practical purposes (Fried et al., 2020), are scientifically civically engaged (Malotky et al., 2020; Dauer et al., 2021; Levy et al., 2021, Olimpo et al., 2019) and potentially when participatory action research is part of the research process (Trott et al., 2019). Importantly, to significantly increase retention, students must become aware of prosocial science career paths and opportunities early in their academic careers before they typically depart STEM majors. Thus, it would be ideal to integrate prosocial examples or experiences into introductory STEM classes.

Community colleges (CCs) are more likely to enroll underserved communities in introductory STEM classes than 4-y institutions (CCRC, 2023) and many CCs often hold the federal status of minority-serving institution (MSI, e.g. Historically Black Colleges and Universities & Asian American Native American Pacific Islanders Serving Institutions) or Hispanic serving institution (HSI). Thus, CCs are ideally positioned to make local impacts, help diverse communities, and retain talented and diverse STEM students by introducing them early to prosocial science. CCs teach over 44% of all students enrolled in postsecondary education in the US (CCRC, 2023), and many CCs include either community service or the development of a workforce to specifically support the local community as an explicitly stated goal in their mission statements (Abelman and Delassandro, 2008). Furthermore, for many CCs, students are residents of local communities. Thus, they are integrated into community networks and structures (Cohen et al., 2014; Chapter 2: Students).

More specifically, HSI CC campuses frequently draw strongly from the local community (e.g., Pima CC in Tucson, AZ has a local population that is ∼43% Hispanic or Latino with an enrolled student population that is ∼47% Hispanic or Latino; datausa.io, 2023) and maybe even more well-positioned to increase retention and participation of underserved groups. Hispanic students tend to endorse prosocial values strongly (Hurtado et al., 2010; Estrada et al., 2016; Holland et al., 2019). For these students, involvement in community-engaged science early on may be especially impactful in sparking further interest, motivating students, and ultimately retaining them in STEM (Tibbetts et al., 2016; Jackson et al., 2016; Harackiewicz et al., 2023). Supporting these students in developing science self-efficacy, science identity, and predicted science civic engagement is likely to be beneficial for populations typically underserved by STEM in general (e.g., Denson, 2017; Michel et al., 2021). Below, we discuss each of these constructs and the associated frameworks we use to guide this work.

FRAMEWORKS

Below we first discuss two instructional frameworks (CUREs and Place-based education) that may contribute to these positive outcomes. We then discuss outcomes investigated in this work that might: a) increase students’ persistence in STEM (science self-efficacy, belonging, and identity), and b) increase their likelihood of engaging civically using their science skills (predictors of scientific civic engagement). Finally, we detail a proposed model of “PoP-CUREs” (Figure 1) or CURE, which combines place-based education with the CURE instructional framework.

Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs)

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been identified as a best practice for improving persistence in STEM for underrepresented students (Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Dolan 2016; Estrada et al., 2016; Rodenbusch et al., 2016). CUREs offer a way for many students to gain research experiences during traditional class time (Auchincloss et al., 2014) and conducting and contributing to research helps students to develop science self-efficacy and science identity (reviewed in Corwin et al., 2015; Rodenbusch et al., 2016; Figure 1). CUREs can take the form of multisemester courses (e.g., Freshman Research Initiative, Beckham et al., 2015), semester-long courses (e.g., Bootleg Biology, DeHaven et al., 2022), or as a module embedded in a traditional course offering (e.g., Dune CURE, Stanfield et al., 2022) (reviewed in Dunbar-Wallis et al., 2024). CURE classes were hypothesized to include five elements (Auchincloss et al., 2014):

1. Discovery encompasses the idea that students will discover something new in CUREs,

2. Relevance encapsulates the intention that what the students produce in the class (i.e., their discoveries) will be useful or “relevant” to a community beyond the classroom (e.g., the scientific community or a local community),

3. Iteration encompasses the idea that students will have opportunities to revise or repeat work to improve it,

4. Collaboration refers to students having opportunities to collaborate with others toward achieving a goal and;

5. Science Practices refer to the students’ use of science practices to accomplish their goals.

Because these initial elements were proposed, work has shown that the two elements of discovery and relevance are central to courses being identified as “CUREs” (Corwin et al., 2015; Corwin et al., 2018; Cooper et al., 2019). There is also evidence that the CURE elements, in particular discovery and relevance, contribute to positive outcomes such as science self-efficacy, project ownership, sense of belonging to science, science identity, and intentions to persist in STEM (e.g., Hanauer et al., 2012, 2017; Hanauer and Dolan, 2014; Olimpo et al., 2016; Corwin et al., 2018; Gin et al., 2018; Cooper et al., 2019; Esparza et al., 2020; Goodwin et al., 2021; Newell and Ulrich, 2022; Dunbar-Wallis et al., 2024). In particular, CUREs offered early in students’ undergraduate careers can influence students’ academic and career paths (reviewed in Corwin et al., 2018), and students who engage in research within their first 2 y demonstrate higher persistence in STEM majors (Graham et al., 2013; Rodenbusch et al., 2016). CUREs have also been shown to increase the inclusion of students from underserved groups (Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Rodenbusch et al., 2016).

Place-Based Education

Place-based learning (PBL) is an approach and philosophy that emphasizes using aspects of a local environment, including culture, history, ecology, citizens, or the natural and built environment, as a context for learning (Demarest, 2014; Semken et al., 2017). PBL is especially useful in disciplines that are grounded in place, such as Geology, Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Studies. Like CUREs, certain elements of PBL define this practice. We draw on both Demarest and Semken and colleagues’ work to describe PBL:

1. PBL topics and content arise from the attributes of local place-making learning relevant to students when they are both in and out of the classroom,

2. PBL is interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary but retains a disciplinary identity. Due to the constraints of curriculum and departmental structure, PBL classes tend to identify strongly with one discipline but draw on multiple disciplines to understand a problem or project and often collaborate with those outside of a discipline to advance progress on a problem or project.

3. PBL includes a participatory or service-learning component that is intended to serve the local community in pro-environmental, sustainable ways. These components occur in a social environment with connections among the place, students, community members, and other stakeholders (Woodhouse and Knapp, 2000; Gruenewald, 2014).

4. PBL enriches individual sense of place for students and instructors, helping them develop their own personal perception and experience in a place or environment and thus connecting them to that environment. (Demarest, 2014)

5. PBL acknowledges the diverse meanings that place holds for the instructor, students, and community (e.g., locally situated traditional knowledge, local experiences)

Research has demonstrated that PBL classes increase students’ sense of belonging to a local place through strengthening peer relationships (Johnson et al., 2020) and increase science identity through inclusive learning environments (Ambrosino and Rivera, 2022). PBL has also been described as increasing students’ civic engagement and proenvironmental behaviors with regard to their local community. Along with these outcomes, PBL increases students value for local environments and their civic self-efficacy (e.g., Eppinga et al., 2019). Thus, PBL can be especially impactful for shaping students’ outcomes with regard to relationships and interactions with local communities who are often not deeply embedded within the discipline of the class.

Science Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as one's belief in one's ability to function effectively in a given activity (Bandura, 1997) and is considered to be an important outcome for students because one's sense of one's own efficacy predicts one's future engagement with a task. Specifically, science self-efficacy refers to one's sense of their own ability to engage in science tasks. It is an important outcome in introductory biology courses as it influences persistence in STEM (Chemers et al., 2011; Estrada et al., 2011; Hurtado and Ruiz, 2012; Robnett et al., 2015). As discussed in previous work regarding this particular CURE outcome (Dunbar-Wallis et al., 2024), the development of science self-efficacy is generative over time as individuals gain and integrate skills into successfully executing tasks (Bandura, 1997, p. 37). The four components of student development of self-efficacy are: 1) mastery experiences (capable completion of a task), 2) vicarious experiences (witnessing or hearing about a similar other completing a task), 3) social persuasion (affirmation from an important other that a task can be successfully completed), and 4) psychological states (the feelings associated with task completion) (Bandura, 1986). Mastery experiences are often recognized as the most impactful component of self-efficacy formation (Bandura, 2008). Usher and Pajares (2008) found that many students cite mastery experiences as being the most important for feeling self-efficacious in classes that do science research. In prior work in CUREs, mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, and social persuasion have all been described as contributors to self-efficacy (Dunbar-Wallis et al., 2024, CURE Self-Efficacy) and increased self-efficacy more broadly is an important student outcome from participation in CUREs (Dolan, 2016; Estrada et al., 2016; Rodenbusch et al., 2016; Esparza et al., 2020; Martin et al., 2021; Wilczek et al., 2022; Majka et al., 2023).

Science Identity

Development of science identity is a predictor of persistence in STEM (Chemers et al., 2011; Graham et al., 2013; Hanauer and Dolan, 2014, Hanauer et al., 2016) and can be mediated by self-efficacy (Robnett et al., 2015). Previous research has demonstrated that students who think of themselves as a “science person” can specifically influence minority and first-generation students’ success in STEM (Chen et al., 2021). The process of identity production is highly complex (reviewed in Le et al., 2019). Based on previous studies, Sandrone (2022) posits that science identity is shaped by a sense of affiliation, student attitudinal factors, and an alignment between what students learn and how they apply it to their lives. Likewise, identity is positively associated with belonging (Trujillo and Tanner, 2014; Sandrone, 2022). While identity describes how one sees oneself and includes one's beliefs or ideals, belonging refers to whether an individual feels a sense of affiliation combined with support and acceptance within a particular group (often due to alignment of beliefs or ideals). Developing an association with a group can often inform one's values and beliefs and thus inform their identity development. In this study, we measure science identity with an instrument that asks students about their sense of affiliation with the STEM community specifically and we investigate both belonging and identity using a qualitative approach. Notably, self-efficacy at tasks common to a discipline can inform one's sense of belonging within that discipline.

Predictors of Science Civic Engagement (PSCE)

While civic engagement describes one's engagement with a community with the intention of contributing positively to the well-being of the individuals within that community, science civic engagement refers to the use of one's science skills in community engagement (Alam et al., 2022). There are four known predictors of scientific civic engagement characterized by Alam and colleagues (2022) and based on prior work in civic engagement broadly: knowledge (Bobek et al., 2009), action (Moely et al., 2002), self-efficacy (Weber et al., 2004), and civic value (Doolittle and Faul, 2013):

1. Scientific civic knowledge refers to a student's perceived expertise or ability to engage with the community using their scientific knowledge and skills (Bobek et al., 2009).

2. Scientific civic action is the student's intention to act in the community using scientific knowledge or skills (Moely et al., 2002).

3. Scientific civic self-efficacy refers to a student's confidence regarding their ability to have a positive impact in the community using their scientific knowledge or skills (Weber et al., 2004).

4. Civic value is a student's sense of importance about their engagement in the community using scientific skills or knowledge (Doolittle and Faul, 2013).

In broad contexts, knowledge, intended action, self-efficacy, and value are all predictors of one's future likelihood of civic engagement, and it follows that these can also be used to predict the scientific civic engagement of students. Each has also been recognized as having the potential to result from educational interventions, civically engaged courses, or other civic education (reviewed in Alam et al., 2022). Notably, these constructs share relationships with those described above. Students who engage in civic activities using their science skills have the opportunity to deepen their connection to local communities (local belonging), develop mastery experiences using their science skills (science self-efficacy), and perform the practices of a scientist to benefit a specific community (science identity). We endeavor to understand what behaviors and activities in place-based CUREs foster the development of future scientific civic engagement in undergraduate students.

PoP-CUREs

Power of Place CUREs (PoP-CUREs; Jaeger et al., 2024) combine place-based education (Demarest, 2014; Gruenewald, 2014; Semken et al., 2017) with CUREs, emphasizing student scientific civic engagement in the community. We have included an overarching model proposing how PoP-CUREs contribute to self-efficacy, predicted science civic engagement, and sense of belonging below (Figure 1). Our PoP-CURE model emphasizes that the research done needs to be relevant to the community where the research is taking place (i.e., grounded in place) and strives to create a connection between students, community members, and scientists (community engagement, Figure 1). Thus, the Discovery and Relevance components within a PoP-CURE have more potential to contribute to future science civic engagement than in a normal CURE. Furthermore, due to Hispanic students’ likelihood of endorsing pro-social values, these CUREs may have a differentially positive impact on persistence for this group of students. In combining PBL with CUREs, there is potential to deepen and broaden impacts as students will not only have the potential to build science self-efficacy (as they are engaging with science research), but alongside, this may have potential to build civic knowledge, civic skills, civic value, and civic self-efficacy in engaging with the public using their science skills (i.e., scientific civic engagement).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In this study, we address questions related to the impact of prosocial goals embedded in CUREs. Our context is PoP-CURE: “Bee the CURE.” This course took place over 12 wk in an Introductory Biology course which is a core class for biology and prehealth majors. Students investigated the species identities of bees collected by a local museum in Tucson, AZ, a bee biodiversity hotspot that relies on bees for many ecosystem services (e.g., pollination), submitted their results to an international database, archived their results in the local museum archive, and presented to locals and project collaborators via a community poster presentation (Dunbar-Wallis et al., 2024). The CURE included wet lab activities, bioinformatics, invited speakers, a field trip to the museum, and a poster presentation of results.

We were interested in the impact of this PoP-CURE on students’ likelihood of persistence in STEM and their future potential for scientific civic engagement. Thus, we looked at three predictors of persistence known to increase as a result of CURE participation: science self-efficacy, belonging to a science community, and science identity (Newell and Ulrich, 2022). These have positive relationships in that learning science leads to building science self-efficacy, which leads to developing belonging and science identity, and identifying as a scientist leads to gaining more science self-efficacy (Graham et al., 2013). Given that we are interested in how students develop as scientifically engaged citizens, we also investigated four predictors of future scientific civic engagement over the course of the semester. We examined changes in these predictors and student-described mechanisms for how these shifted or why they remained the same (Figure 2).

Our research questions include:

• RQ1: Does participation in the Bee the CURE course influence a student's science self-efficacy, sense of belonging to the science community, and science identity?

• RQ2: a - Do students feel a sense of belonging to the local community? b - How does a student's sense of belonging to the local community influence their PoP-CURE outcomes?

• RQ3: Does participation in the Bee the CURE course influence a student's predicted scientific civic engagement?

METHODS

This study is being conducted with approval from the Internal Review Board for Human Subjects at Pima Community College as exempt research, according to 45 CFR Part 690.101(b) (1) (2).

POSITIONALITY

A.D.W. is a nontraditional aged, cis-female, white graduate student and parent at an R1 institution. Her work is focused on community-engaged research experiences for undergraduate populations. A.D.W. began her postsecondary education at a commuter college and has spent many years working with students from CCs in bridge programs and with transfer students in field ecology programs. J.B.K. has extensive teaching experience in CCs and has taught over 120 sections of introductory biology over 20 years. J.B.K. is also the first woman in her family to finish college. W.M. is a biodiversity researcher, CURE educator, and curator of an active insect research collection at an R1 institution. L.A.C. is an educator and education researcher at an R1 institution. She is a former community college biology educator and held an administrative position as a transfer student coordinator at a public R1 institution. In both positions, she worked closely with CC students to ensure that their educational experiences aligned with their academic and career goals, and she developed a passion for working specifically with the populations of students common to community colleges (e.g., students engaging with workforce training, returning students, more diverse student communities, military veterans). L.A.C., A.D.W., J.B.K., and W.M. are passionate about understanding how undergraduate research in CUREs supports students’ persistence and development in STEM fields. These aspects inform their lens in this work: they strive to understand how contextual factors of CUREs at CCs influence student outcomes with the intention of improving undergraduate STEM education and access to research at CCs.

COURSE CONTEXT

The “Bee the CURE” course took place throughout the semester of “General Biology for Majors I” which is a 16-wk core class for biology majors at Pima Community College, an HSI in Arizona. Students enrolled in this course are reflective of the student body as a whole at PCC in terms of reported sex (largely female), race (PCC ∼50% Hispanic), and age (PCC is ∼30% nontraditional). However, while we still had a larger percent of first-generation college students (∼30), this was less than the typical population of PCC (∼45%; Table 1).

This introductory biology course with an integrated CURE was taught as a hybrid synchronous online lecture with an in-person laboratory class (where the CURE took place) in Fall 2021 and Spring 2022 (Table 2). The CURE component is part of a larger community-based research program that is a collaboration between the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, University of Arizona (UofA), and now, Pima CC. This project is a long-term survey of native bees across the Tucson Basin that aims to track the health and phenology of the pollinators in the Sonoran Desert. The project relies on sorting specimens to species-level using the DNA barcodes to make inferences about pollinator populations. One instructor (J.B.K.) taught each course in both semesters (after teaching a fully online offering of this course in Fall 2020). The instructor was supported by student mentors from one of two categories. PIMA peer mentors were registered PCC students who had previous experience as students enrolled in the course. These mentors supported students in both the lecture and lab. The Fall 2021 peer mentors had experience from the fully online Bee the CURE offering. The Spring 2022 peer mentors had experience in the Fall 2021 course and in the fully online offering from Fall 2020. Alternatively, UoA mentors were undergraduate and graduate students from the UofA who supported lab instruction within the CURE labs specifically. Both UofA mentors had an educational background that began with CCs. Wet lab (characterized by DNA extraction and amplification) instruction and skills practice occurred twice over the CURE labs (once with a practice bee and once with a bee for identification purposes, see table). Bees for DNA extraction and amplification were provided by the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and the UofA Insect Collection. These bees were collected by community volunteers experienced in sampling from bee populations. Volunteers constituted a group of individuals with diverse professional backgrounds outside of biology, which included both scientific experiences (e.g., former UofA STEM faculty) and nonscience areas of expertise (e.g., accounting). These volunteers brought their diverse areas of expertise to bear on the bee project by talking with students at the poster session and often describing how the bee project intersected with their own areas of expertise/interest, aligning with the trans- and interdisciplinary aspects of place-based research. Importantly, students were made aware of volunteers’ activities within the Tucson Bee Collaborative, their interest and value for the project, and their knowledge and engagement with specimen collection throughout the CURE and before the poster session. This allowed students to have full knowledge of the community-embedded nature of their work from the start of the project. Bioinformatics portions of the class included students interpreting the results of DNA sequencing and comparing their findings against published sequences in the Barcode of Life Database (BOLD). Students gained skills in the extraction and amplification of DNA from their bees, and they were able to interpret the sequence data and compare it to the database to identify and publish their bee species in BOLD, performing important steps in research and result communication.

Each course offering concluded with a public-poster presentation featuring the results of student bee DNA analysis. The poster session included demonstrations by students of bee identification by morphological features and techniques they learned in the course (e.g., loading DNA samples into gels and running them with electrophoresis rigs) in addition to the presentation of the ASDM/UofA Bee identities. Community members, project collaborators, family, friends, college administrators, and volunteer insect collectors from the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum were invited to attend and ask questions of the student presenters.

Recruitment and Participants

Recruitment of participants for this study included emails and a virtual class visit via Zoom by the researchers at the beginning of the semester for survey participation (Emails sent: Fall 2021 n = 18 and Spring n = 33). The instructor provided class time to complete the surveys and an incentive of a $20 gift card for each student who completed both the pre- and postsurveys. Students who responded to the survey question in which they were asked whether they were willing to participate in the qualitative interviews were contacted via email and invited to register for an interview time. Students who participated in the interviews received an additional incentive of up to $30 in gift cards (Fall 2021 n = 6 and Spring n = 16). All interviews were conducted in-person on the final day of class (either before or after their poster session), with the exception of two interviews being conducted via Zoom.

Research Design

A mixed methods sequential explanatory design utilizing surveys and semistructured interviews was used for this study (Warfa, 2016; Figure 3). The purpose of this design is to ask in what ways the qualitative findings explain the quantitative results. And to use different methods of data collection to broaden understanding of the phenomenon studied rather than confirming or strengthening conclusions (p. 102 Maxwell, 2013). Survey instruments were used for the quantitative portion of the study and semistructured interviews were used for the qualitative portion of the study. Presurveys were available to students during the first 2 wk of each semester and the postsurveys were available on the final day of lab sessions in each semester. Scales relating to science self-efficacy and science identity (Chemers et al., 2011, Estrada et al., 2011) and scales relating to predictors of scientific civic engagement (Alam et al., 2022) were used in both pre- and postsurveys both semesters.

The scales relating to self-efficacy and science identity were taken from descriptions in Estrada and colleagues’ work (2011) on minority student integration into the science community (Chemers et al., 2011). For self-efficacy, students were asked about their confidence (5-point scale from not confident to very confident) in their ability to use technical science skills, generate research questions, figure out the data or observations to collect, create explanations regarding results, use scientific literature in research, and develop theories (Chemers et al., 2011; Estrada et al., 2011). Science Identity items on the survey asked students to indicate their agreement (5-point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with statements about having a sense of belonging to the science community, feeling satisfaction working on a team engaged in research, thinking of themselves as a “scientist”, feeling like they belong to the field of science, and finding the daily work of a scientist appealing (Chemers et al., 2011; Estrada et al., 2016). The validity of these scales was recently reinvestigated (Hanauer et al., 2016), and researchers confirmed that each is a separate dimension, each has internal consistency, and both have predictive validity of intentions to persist in STEM for student populations enrolled in STEM courses; thus, its use for this population, which also consists of undergraduates enrolled in STEM courses, is sound.

The scales of the Predictors of Science Civic Engagement (PSCE) instrument measure the constructs of scientific civic value (CV), scientific civic self-efficacy (CE), scientific civic action (CA), and scientific civic knowledge (CK). Students responded to Likert-type items on a scale of 1 to 6 (To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements…completely disagree to completely agree). Alam and colleagues (2022) provided evidence that this scale is valid for use with undergraduate students from diverse backgrounds, in particular with Hispanic students. The population with which validity was investigated included students from STEM and non-STEM majors and in classes that were both civically and non-civically engaged. Thus, the use of this instrument is sound for this population.

Qualitative semistructured interviews (Supplemental Material) were conducted on the final day of classes. Interviews included 18 questions regarding students’ experiences in the course, student relationships to three communities (the science community, the Bee Researcher community, and the local Tucson community), student perceptions of science self-efficacy, career intentions, science civic engagement during the course, and predictors of future science civic engagement. All interview questions were drafted by ADW and LAC. Questions were pilot-tested and revised slightly with one undergraduate student and one postdoctoral DBER researcher for clarity and timing before interviews. Interviews lasted between 19 and 57 min with a mean of 31.9 min and a median of 24.5 min. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Students were assigned pseudonyms for the purposes of deidentification.

Data Analysis (Quantitative)

All survey data was matched in R by respondent birthdate and anonymized for analysis. Only fully completed pre and postsurveys were included in the analysis (Fall 2021 n = 18, Spring 2022 n = 22). Incomplete and unmatched surveys were not included. Initial descriptive statistics of the paired data (Table 3) were generated using the sumtable function from the vtable package in R (Huntington-Klein, 2022).

The paired responses were analyzed using mixed models in R studio (RStudio Team, 2020; lme4; Bates et al., 2015). As this study investigates two semesters of pre and poststudent data (repeated measures on a commensurate scale), a mixed model was employed to evaluate the change in score on a given construct from pre- to postscore (dependent samples that can be compared).

Where Construct_ij is the outcome variable for student i at time j, β₀ is the intercept, β₁ is the coefficient for the effect of PrePost on the outcome variable, β₂ is the coefficient for the effect of Year, β₃ is the coefficient for the interaction effect between PrePost and Year on the outcome variable, PrePost_ij is the binary predictor of pre or post survey response for student i at time j, Year_j is the predictor representing Fall or Spring semester, u_0i is the random intercept for each student, and e_ij is the residual error. All outcome variables were numeric variables generated from survey responses to between three and six questions that asked students to respond on Likert-style scales (see above). Visual inspection of qq plots was conducted to assess the normality of data (Supplemental Material). As the sample sizes for both semesters were small, power analysis using G*Power 3.1 was performed (Faul et al., 2007). Power for small, medium, and large effect sizes was calculated, given our relatively small sample size. We found that with a sample of 40 students, our power to detect a small effect (f² of 0.02) was low. We would only be able to detect a true small effect 14% of the time with the cutoff of 0.05. We would be able to detect a medium effect size (f² of 0.15) 66% of the time and a large effect (f² of 0.35) 95% of the time. Given these results and the fact that small and medium effects may be important in education research, we report our negative results (i.e., a lack of finding a difference) with caution because we may not have the power to detect true differences (Halsey et al., 2015). We report our data in graphs which show the distribution of student responses and using Cohen's d, which has the effect size cutoffs indicated above in the power analyses.

As the purpose of this design is to ask in what ways the qualitative findings explain the quantitative results to broaden understanding of the phenomenon studied (p. 102 Maxwell, 2013) we believe this method of quantitative analysis suits this purpose even with the small sample size and low power. The package ggplot2 was used to generate data visualizations (box plots) of the prescores and postscores for each construct (Wickham, 2016).

Data Analysis (Qualitative)

Codebook development was an interactive and recursive process by L.A.C., A.D.W., and J.B.K.. Inductive coding (Saldana, 2016), a-priori coding based on our frameworks (CUREs, self-efficacy, science identity, and PSCE), and then thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2021) was used to analyze interview transcripts. Initial coding included a-priori codes based on interview questions and the frameworks described above and was supplemented with inductive coding upon first reviews of the transcripts. A.D.W. and L.A.C. read and coded seven interview transcripts and generated the initial codes under the broad categories of career intention, challenges, course elements, identities and community, belonging, relationships, outcomes, and science skills. For example, we coded students’ quotes as containing information about belonging when they mentioned feeling a group affiliation or developing values, beliefs, or skills strongly associated with a particular group. After the initial codebook was developed, four further interviews were read and coded by L.A.C., A.D.W., and J.B.K.. These authors came to the consensus on codes and the codebook (Supplemental Material). These four interviews were code checked, discussed, and recoded to consensus. Using inductive coding and thematic analysis A.D.W. and J.B.K. evaluated the remainder of the interview transcripts, including revisiting the initial seven interviews used to generate the codebook and coded to consensus. Codes were then summarized into broader themes using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2021) that pertain to science identity, self-efficacy, and community to address the research questions.

RESULTS

Science Self-Efficacy

We see gains in science self-efficacy from pre- to postsurvey in both Fall 2021 and Spring 2022 semesters. Figure 4a shows that after participating in Bee the CURE students report increased science self-efficacy (Table 4). Notably, this increase occurred over both years, and there was no statistical difference between years. In general, this trend was driven by a shift from students saying that they “agreed” to that they “strongly agreed” with statements relating to self-efficacy.

The instrument we used to measure students’ growth in self-efficacy asked students about their confidence in their ability to use technical science skills, generate research questions, understand which data to collect and how to collect them, explain the results of a study, use scientific literature, and develop scientific theories (Chemers et al., 2011; Estrada et al., 2011). Qualitatively, students often mentioned enjoyment and feelings of accomplishment after having wet-lab experiences, which they frequently described as “hands-on,” to support learning and skill development which aligns with the items addressing technical skills and collecting data. In reference to science skills, Arlo shared that his self-efficacy increased during wet-bench activities:

Alyssa also shared that engaging directly in research not only increased her ability to do the science but also her understanding because she was able to do the science task instead of only observing:

We coded these as “science skills: hands-on” to reflect students’ own language, and they fall under the qualitative theme of science self-efficacy development. Self-efficacy is developed through four main pathways: 1) mastery experiences, 2) emotional states, 3) social persuasion, and 4) vicarious experiences (Bandura, 1978). Here, Arlo and Alyssa described how a mastery experience (“able to [extract DNA from a bee's leg] myself” and “physically did it!”) influenced their understanding and science self-efficacy. Mastery experiences were commonly reported by students as contributing to self-efficacy development.

Another way students developed science self-efficacy was through social persuasion and vicarious experiences. Work in small groups that was supported by the instructor and peer mentors throughout the process (social persuasion and vicarious experiences) was noted as being helpful for developing both community and self-efficacy.

In contrasting this course experience with a different STEM course, Caitlin described a supportive environment where the students work together to understand challenges encountered in the research process (coded as course elements; camaraderie; supportive environment). In her description, Caitlin emphasized that students have the opportunity to see other students succeed in research and she describes how other students can be positioned to explain skills to their peers. Students sharing how they worked through a process with a fellow student is a demonstration of vicarious experience in the development of self-efficacy. Later in her interview Cailin described how she had built confidence working with her peers.

Students described developing science self-efficacy through how they felt (emotional states) as a result of their accomplishments.

Above, Alyssa expressed her self-efficacy when she explained that she is contributing to science, and this feeling arose from feelings of excitement (emotional states; coded as feelings; excitement; positive affect) which are related to the opportunity to contribute to a vetted database (BOLD, social persuasion; coded as course elements; discovery; value).

Students also expressed enthusiasm (coded as science communication; excitement) after participating in the final poster session in which they presented their findings to community members. Betsy shared:

Connecting with the museum volunteers who collect a majority of the bees the students analyze was a fun experience for this student and extended her contextual learning while also validating the utility of the results and contributing to science self-efficacy. Specifically, this student's excitement and her connection of the excitement to her scientific contribution represents a source of self-efficacy: positive psychological states. In feeling good and like a part of the science, Betsy, connects positive affect to her own science actions. Each student poster was visited by museum volunteers, and students were asked questions about the research process and findings. Students enjoyed having a broader audience to report their research findings and find common connection through the organism of study.

Science Identity and Sense of Belonging to the Science Community

At the end of the course, students continued to identify as scientists or felt a greater science identity, as indicated by maintaining high levels of agreement with identity scales. Science identity showed a trend toward increasing in both years (Table 4, Figure 4b). This was on a 5-point scale in which students started with an already high level of science identity (4.00 in 2021 and 3.80 in 2022). This was due to a shift from students “agreeing” with statements about identity to “strongly agreeing.”

Qualitatively, statements coded as science identity and belonging to the scientific community often originated from involvement with the science community (20 of 22) and building knowledge.

As Caitlin described below, science identity was frequently linked to engagement in research during the CURE:

Caitlin credited the exposure to research with positioning her as “closer” to the science community and increasing her passion for science, hallmarks of science identity. Similar to Caitlin, Leo expressed that “just being able to work, do things that I feel like a scientist would do just really helped feel like I was a part of it,” referencing the research project as the “thing that a scientist would do.” Engaging in these scientific activities helped students to identify as a scientist and feel a sense of belonging to the science community.

Students described feeling a sense of belonging to the science community after participating in Bee the CURE (20 of 22). Many students cited providing the service of bee DNA barcoding helped them to begin to identify as members of the science community (8 of 22). In providing DNA extraction and bioinformatics, Alyssa states:

In contrast with previous course experiences for Alyssa, this course helped her feel like a member of the science community because of the wet-bench involvement and the process of research. Alyssa also expressed that the research experience made learning science concepts “stick” for her. Feeling like she understood the concepts allowed her to feel like a scientist. Other students described the act of publishing sequences to BOLD (3 of 22) as support for feeling like a member of the science community. Building confidence through communication with others and publication about the research in Bee the CURE led Cate to develop a sense of belonging to the science community:

Having her work viewed by other scientists who Cate saw as experts and “important” confirmed the value of Cate's research. She connected this valuation of her work to her own membership in the science community later in her interview.

Sense of Belonging to A Local Community

Our evidence of belonging to the local community is purely qualitative, as we did not include surveys to address this metric. Student's sense of belonging to the local Tucson community shows mixed results. Of the 22 students interviewed, 17 reported feelings of belonging to the Tucson community, while five students mentioned that they did not necessarily feel any sense of belonging to a local community. When asked directly about whether they consider themselves to be a member of the Tucson community, Agatha shared, “Yeah. I've been here long enough. I even help my community. I try and do my part.” This student mentioned civic engagement as being part of the community. In contrast, Caitlin's response was that her feeling of belonging to the Tucson community is developing since she is a newcomer:

Communicating scientific outcomes from the course is one method that helped Caitlin develop a sense of belonging to the local community.

Fewer students reported a lack of belonging to the local community. Isabel represents the perspectives of several students that did not feel a sense of belonging to the Tucson community. Her response to the question of belonging was a definitive “no.” Later she explained that, though she had lived in the Tucson community for several years, she did not consider herself a part of it and intended to leave. Thus, the duration of residence in Tucson did not always determine a sense of belonging.

Predictors of Science Civic Engagement

The construct of scientific civic knowledge, or a student's sense of how to use or apply knowledge and skills to help a community, had a p value of less than 0.001, indicating that differences in this construct over time are greater than we would expect simply due to random chance (Table 5). For Fall 2021 we saw an increase in agreement that students feel they have knowledge of how to engage with the community. In Spring 2022, students began the semester with high levels of agreement and ended the semester with almost complete agreement that they have the knowledge of how to engage in the community (Figure 5a).

Qualitatively, students made statements that confirmed this finding, such as, “The research I am conducting for the Arizona Bee Project is able to serve communities in Southern Arizona by helping to put bee species in the database. This will allow the scientists to gain a better understanding of the bees and could help the community with this knowledge.” This student described how the knowledge and skills they gained as part of the CURE might serve the community. Students also recognized that they developed abilities to effectively communicate knowledge they have gained to help others learn and do more to support local systems. Kellen shared:

Further, Neva shared: “I feel I can learn a lot more about our ecosystem and everything, but definitely, I feel as if I can talk about our ecosystem to someone who hasn't lived in Tucson and feel confident that they can understand the kind of bee diversity that's here.”

We did not see significant increases (p = 0.199, df = 39) in the construct of scientific civic action, or a student's intention to act with the goal of improving well-being in the community (Figure 5b). We also saw a high degree of variance within this construct. Our qualitative results help us better understand these results. Some students (7 of 20) did have the intention to act in their community. Alyssa described her desire to continue to engage with her community and bring elements of what she learned in this class to her existing efforts:

Here, Alyssa expressed a desire to partner the science skills gained in the CURE with social change work to expand her ability to help in her community. Arlo described a desire to continue working with the AZ Bee Project in new and different ways. He stated: “I want to help the collection process, bring out the nectar, plants, that type of stuff, something that small. Or if I can do that whole process [DNA extraction and bioinformatics] again, I might do it again.” This intention was echoed by Betsy who said: “[I'm] definitely interested in helping to kind of continue to work alongside [Tucson Bee Collaborative].”

However, students’ intentions to act are not always as clear as Alyssa's, Arlo's, or Betsy's and some students hedge their intentions and express not knowing how to engage. Cate states:

Cate hedged her intentions by at first expressing that she “doesn't know” but later stating that “it would be pretty cool.” This type of ambiguity was common in students’ responses. While each student interviewed mentioned that they were able to act in the community because of their involvement with this CURE, many did not express a clear intention to extend that beyond the class by thinking more broadly about the science skills and their general application to other problems. Like Cate, many mentioned a desire to help but a lack of knowledge of how to help specifically.

Conversely, some students expressed that they were appreciative of the research experience but had no intention of using their scientific skills in the community as they are imagining a future elsewhere. Three out of 20 students expressed this view. Isabel shared, “I'm grateful for the opportunity, but I have plans to move again so I don't plan to stay put in Arizona for that long.” Isabel expressed that developing science skills during the Bee Project was a personal boon, but clearly stated that she did not envision continuing to use her science skills to help this particular community or other communities in the future. The mix of students expressing clear intentions to act, more nebulous positive interaction, and a complete lack of intention to act explains our quantitative results, which show overall positive intent but broad variance, especially in Spring 2022.

Scientific civic self-efficacy refers to a student's confidence in their ability to have a positive impact in their community using their science skills. Overall students showed no change in pre- to postsurveys of scientific civic self-efficacy (Figure 5c). Generally, students “somewhat agree” or “agree” with the statements relating to civic self-efficacy. While our statistical analysis does not support an across-the-board increase in science self-efficacy for all students, we do see evidence that this construct increased for some students in our spring 2022 offering within our qualitative data. This is reflected in the broad variance we see reflected in our quantitative data. Qualitatively, seven students from the spring semester indicated that helping the community to identify bees gave them a confidence boost regarding their science skills. Trevor shared that he gained confidence because he was able to use his science skills in helping the museum: “help[ing] out the Sonoran Desert Museum community with identifying a species of bee just gave me [confidence].” Students also made statements in the interview that reflected feelings of increased scientific civic self-efficacy, but that also expressed a critical comparison of themselves to researchers who students felt were more qualified or credentialed. For example, Agatha stated:

Students were wary of claiming sufficient expertise to help the local community, given that they had been exposed to experts with a high degree of experience and knowledge during the project, and they wanted to highlight that they had more to learn in order to claim expert status.

Alodie felt confident in the skills learned during the CURE but felt like her impact would be context specific:

Alodie viewed science skills as the wet-bench techniques in this context even though designing and planting a pollinator garden would utilize her science skills.

Overall, students' descriptions of their confidence reflect and explain the lack of quantitative change we see. While there is evidence that students are gaining skills and building confidence, there is also evidence that they are uncertain whether these skills are “science skills” and whether they are “sufficient” to help the local community. Their confidence waivers when they have the opportunity to compare themselves to experts.

Finally, the construct of scientific civic value refers to a student's sense of responsibility when engaging and how important they feel it is to engage in the community using science skills. Our statistical analysis indicated no change in the pre- to postscore, and the values remained moderately high (Table 5 and Figure 5d). It should be noted that the score reported indicates that students mostly “agreed” with the statements in the survey related to civic value, meaning that they felt it was important to engage in the community.

Several (16 of 22) students stated the importance of engaging with their community qualitatively. Isabel stated: “I found it was more interesting to do something that was community-based because it made me feel like I was doing something important. And it made me want to learn more about what I was doing because I wanted to know the effect I was having.” However, statements similar to this were often qualified by students who expressed that, while science skills were valuable broadly to society, they did not have strong ideas, whether science would be valuable to specific communities that they identified with. For example, when asked whether she planned to use her science skills to help any of her communities, Cate made a nonspecific statement about the helpfulness of science: “Probably like my skills in science can help. I feel like science is everywhere. So, it's definitely going to be useful.” However, later in the conversation, she made the distinction that science skills would not be helpful or valuable to her religious community, indicating that students parsed where they felt science skills would be important and that they did not feel a responsibility to use these skills across all contexts. Other students expressed similar views, saying that their skills would be helpful broadly or in specific communities but that other communities would not benefit or even want to engage with science.

The Influence of Local Sense of Belonging on Students’ Scientific Civic Engagement Outcomes

Students who qualitatively reported feelings of belonging to the science community and their local community were able to give concrete examples of actions that would help their community (i.e., they had specific civic knowledge, 19 of 22 students). Neva states: “definitely, I feel as if I can talk about our ecosystem to someone who hasn't lived in Tucson and feel confident that they can understand the kind of [bee] diversity that's here.” She further discussed this knowledge being useful to a family member who is a youth science educator. These students were able to extend their learning in this course by describing examples of science skills that could be useful to their communities. Some students connected these skills to specific actions they hoped to take. Alyssa mentioned using leadership skills from club activities paired with science skills gained in class “I would love to bring some of the leadership and some of the hands-on things that I learned from the research project to bring this type of research to social change and be able to make some of those changes on a different level.” Pacifica stated that they could use their science skills in conjunction with volunteering in food banks to educate patrons regarding nutrition, “I already do some volunteering with the food banks in one of my classes here, you have to go into like communities and educate them on nutrition…like in my dietetic internship I will be in communities that maybe are lower poverty or that kind of thing, so I would be educating them on the science behind nutrition and why it's so important.” Lara, who was a member of the Tucson community for over 15 years, shared that she could see herself “volunteering my time and helping [Tucson Bee Collaborative] either collect the bees or work with the university students to work with the materials and go through the process of identifying the bees and sending it off for sequencing.” Each of the above students expressed in their interviews that they held both a developing scientific identity (or a sense of belonging to the science community) and a strong sense of belonging to their local community. As indicated by the quotes, their specific ideas of how to help often arose both from the skills they had learned in class and their prior interactions within their local communities.

Notably, a student need not have lived in Tucson for long to feel a strong desire to contribute locally and a burgeoning belonging. In one instance, a student who had recently moved to Tucson and was enrolled at U of A but taking this course at PCC to meet graduation requirements saw the benefit of gaining science skills in this temporary school community in order to be of benefit to their home community upon graduation. Caitlin specified:

Interestingly, while Caitlin did not articulate specific ways in which she might act in Tucson as did her peers who had lived in Tucson longer, she did articulate specific ideas for how to help her community at “home” where she had lived most of her life. While Caitlin was the only student to present these results, they are nonetheless important for understanding the connections between belonging and scientific civic engagement.

Students who reported a low sense of belonging to the Tucson community, regardless of whether they reported a developing science identity, generally did not express clear or specific ideas of actions that might help the Tucson community or other communities with which they were affiliated (2 of 22). For example, Isabel, who was planning to leave Tucson after graduating, mentions that she was “never really a fan of Tucson”, and while not fully relating to the scientific community, feels like she is becoming a member of the scientific community through “gaining knowledge” but “is not actually [a scientist].” Throughout her interview, Isabel expressed low intentions to engage and did not mention specific ways in which she, or others, might use science skills to help the Tucson community or other communities with which she was affiliated.

DISCUSSION

BEE the CURE demonstrated psychosocial outcomes that are similar to previously studied CUREs. Similar to prior studies on CUREs (e.g., Kowalski et al., 2016, Olimpo et al., 2016, Esparza et al., 2020; Martin et al., 2021), students demonstrated increases in science self-efficacy in both years of Bee the CURE. Olimpo and colleagues (2016) found students who participated in CUREs showed greater increases in self-efficacy and “expert-like behavior” more than non-CURE participating students in a CURE for introductory cell biology students. Self-efficacy regarding laboratory skills also increased for students in multiple different CURE offerings at one institution across two iterations (Martin et al., 2021). Our study echoes these important findings, and similar to results in prior work, we observed increases in students’ science self-efficacy as a result of mastery arising from the “hands-on” nature of the course (wet bench skills and bioinformatics) and engagement of students in real research. Student's psychological states also contributed to science self-efficacy development as they expressed excitement and joy while participating in “hands-on” experiences or when sharing their work with stakeholders beyond the classroom. Psychological states and social persuasion further supported science self-efficacy when students felt pride after publishing their results to BOLD. Notably, undertaking the professional practice of communicating findings is an area of overlap in developing both science self-efficacy and science identity.

Science identity was reasonably high at the start of the course and remained high. Student quotes demonstrated that hands-on research activities and communication of results to relevant stakeholders contributed to belonging to the science community and bolstered science identity for many students. Students’ science identity trended towards an increase, though this was not statistically significant in our small n study. Much like prior work describing students' increased intentions to persist in science when students discovered something new, (Corwin et al., 2018; Cooper et al., 2019), we saw that gaining pertinent skills (wet bench methods), discovering something new (identity of bee), and publishing that result in a public database (BOLD) contributed to maintaining or growing science identity. This aligns with Ballard and colleagues' (2018) hypothesis that “feeling like work is real and meaningful” helps students feel like a scientist and their assertion that community-engaged projects that value local knowledge can affirm a science identity (Ballard et al., 2018). It is also of note that, in Bee the CURE, engaging with both the science and Tucson communities was a central part of the CURE curriculum. Students had the opportunity to be recognized as scientists by local community members outside of the classroom through poster sessions and through publishing on BOLD. Students often reported that the act of doing the research and reporting the results to local community members who cared about the work made them feel more like a scientist and member of the scientific community. This is similar to a study by Stanfield and colleagues (2022), that found gains in science identity when students engaged in locally focused research. It is important to highlight that students in the course viewed local science-engaged community members (i.e., the community volunteers who collected the bees) as important stakeholders whom they hoped to serve and assist with their scientific results. Connecting face-to face with these volunteers, in addition to publishing in a more broadly accessible national database, were both important in inspiring science identity in the context of this study.

Strong feelings of science self-efficacy and science identity are both predictors of STEM persistence (Graham et al., 2013). This has mostly been studied at 4-y institutions and in courses without a place-based, community-engaged component. While not a completely novel finding, the results of this study confirm CURE participation can lead to gains (or trends in gains) in science self-efficacy and science identity at an HSI community college in an introductory biology course. Indeed, there is great potential for CURE participation at a CC to support STEM persistence upon transfer to a 4-y institution. Varty (2022) describes using inclusive teaching practices, including active-learning that is sensitive to the off-campus responsibilities that CC students may have, to spur momentum in transfer student STEM persistence and success at 4-y institutions. Further, CUREs at an HSI community college are a form of equitable instruction that should be harnessed to support STEM persistence and retention (Bangera and Brownell, 2014; Leonetti et al., 2023). Finally, science self-efficacy and science identity, along with science communication skills, have been found to be predictors of undergraduate student motivation for civic engagement and outreach, which we discuss more below (Alderfer et al., 2023; Murphy and Kelp, 2023).

Students in our study started the course with self-reported moderately high levels of predictors of scientific civic engagement and maintained or improved these levels through the course. This overall positive trend was seen in all constructs with significant gains made only in one construct (scientific civic knowledge). This outcome is remarkably similar to what was described in a microbiology CURE with an environmental justice issue that was relevant to a local community in Alabama (e.g., students started with high reported levels of civic engagement; Adkins-Jablonsky et al., 2020). In this study, students in a semester-long community-engaged CURE taught across three different 4-y (R1, PUI, and D-PI) institutions experienced gains in science identity and civic engagement postcourse as measured by the PITS (Hanauer et al., 2016) and the Civic Engagement Survey (Doolittle and Faul, 2013). This study corroborates and expands these results by describing a CURE at a community college that is also an HSI.

Civic self-efficacy started moderately high and remained moderately high. The maintenance of civic self-efficacy, as opposed to a drop in civic self-efficacy, is notable, especially, considering that the Dunning-Kruger effect could be at play, as evidenced by our results. This effect, in which a person overestimates their capability (i.e., their civic self-efficacy exceeds their actual skill), could apply in this situation especially as regards a student's sense of how much skill or knowledge they would need to have an impact on the community and the potential magnitude impact they could have (Kruger and Dunning, 1999). As expressed by multiple students (see quote by Agatha above), learning about others’ vast knowledge and experiences may actually cause students to recalibrate their own estimates of efficacy. This miscalibration of behavior and/or performance has been noted in other studies of undergraduates in introductory STEM classes (Jensen and Moore, 2008; Osterhage, 2021) and sometimes results in decreases in self-efficacy after a course is taken. The fall semester students reported no change in this construct, which we consider a positive result, especially as students remained self-efficacious and did not experience overall decreases in self-efficacy.

Science civic value scores overall started high and remained high (even though the mean value dipped slightly in the Fall 2021 semester). The PSCE defines civic value as “one's sense of responsibility when engaging with a community with the aim of improving well-being” (see Doolittle and Faul, 2013 in Alam et al., 2022). Our student population reflected that of PCC, which is majorly Hispanic and often first-generation. Both of these demographics are known for valuing civic engagement as it is defined in the instrument we used. (Harackiewicz et al., 2014; Estrada et al., 2016). When a collective goal of a student population is that science should help others and be of service to the community (Allen et al., 2015) it makes sense that students will have high starting civic value and that this will persist. Thus, while we cannot say if or how this CURE might have affected students’ scientific civic value, we are encouraged to see that it remained high throughout the course.

Scientific civic action showed a positive trend, particularly, in the Spring 2022 semester, but did not show a statistically significant increase. Our qualitative data pointed to several reasons why we did not see a change in intentions to act. Concrete opportunities and knowledge of what steps to take next after the class remained ambiguous to students which indicates that civic action may not occur after civically engaged courses without explicit direction. Also, the measurement of this construct was slightly more abstract and future-focused than that of the civic knowledge (which showed a significant increase). This may have resulted in students who were responding to these questions feeling less certain and not endorsing shifts in their attitudes as strongly. Indeed, prior work by Pruett and Weigel (2020) has shown that how community engagement is measured can have an effect on the ability to detect outcomes. In addition, the hedging answers that students provided when asked if they might continue to engage may reflect that they were uninterested in the specific ways in which the Bee project engaged but might be interested in other forms of civic engagement. Students also expressed that they had limited time to continue their civic/community engagements after the course and expressed vague intentions to continue at a nonspecific time in the future. For example, several students described a desire to volunteer with the K–12 schools in their area but did not articulate who they would contact or when they would start. We hypothesize that providing more opportunities for students to directly communicate with community members and stakeholders during the course could help students connect to more concrete opportunities to contribute postcourse. Likewise, incorporating service-learning pedagogies could help students to better articulate the ways in which their science skills are of use to the community and define methods of future involvement (Smith, 2003; Adkins-Jablonsky et al., 2020). Bringle and Hatcher (2009) recommend preparation, action, reflection, and assessment as components that are necessary for successful service-learning for students (reviewed in Daniels et al., 2015). Incorporating activities such as these to help students evaluate their past involvement and envision attainable and specific future pursuits may spur future action as goal setting theory has described that goal specificity and attainability influence goal achievement (Locke and Latham, 2002).

Overall, we consider the maintenance of moderately high civic self-efficacy, value, and intentions to act to be a positive outcome of Bee the CURE, especially, considering the Dunning Kruger effect and that learning about challenges associated with scientifically civically engaged pursuits can be discouraging, since students also must learn about the difficulties associated with these more complex projects (Osterhage, 2021). However, given that both our quantitative and qualitative results point to an overall lack of change in these constructs, we might ask the questions: 1) How, can we further improve these constructs in populations that already have pro-social orientations? 2) What might we be able to change in the duration of one semester that could have lasting effects on students’ scientific civic engagement? Our results suggest expanding scientific civic knowledge may be a tractable target.

BEE the CURE students experienced increases in scientific civic knowledge (i.e., how to help a community using science skills/knowledge) over the duration of the CURE and provided more specific examples of how to help if they felt a sense of belonging to the local community. In BEE the CURE, students gained knowledge about using DNA barcoding methods to identify bee species for their community. Students had mastery experience conducting both wet-bench techniques and bioinformatics along with the reporting of findings in BOLD and also to community stakeholders. They then extended their science self-efficacy into the knowledge of how to use these skills to help the local community (and, in some cases communities with which they were affiliated beyond Tucson). Students not only reported quantitative gains in scientific civic knowledge, but also described examples of how they could help the local community, demonstrating how they might apply their knowledge. Notably, as we describe above, qualitative analyses revealed that these examples were more specific when students felt belonging within the local community and their examples typically drew directly on the skills learned in class and often on previous experiences or engagements with the community. Feeling belonging enabled students to “see” specific ways that the community could benefit. Likewise, these students typically expressed an emerging science identity. Thus, while almost all students could describe some way in which they could use their science knowledge and skill to help others, belonging could moderate the level of specificity of students' responses.

Are students who have both a science and “local” identity better equipped to envision how to engage civically? This study suggests that having a strong local community identity coupled with a burgeoning science identity and learned science skills leads to greater potential for specific ideas about civic engagement, which may translate into higher potential for civic engagement in the future. This is aligned with prior research that has shown that school-age children (e.g., 7^th–12^th grades) display increased civic engagement in school when they feel a sense of belonging (Cumsille and Martinez, 2015; Encina and Berger, 2021) and that neighborhood connectedness, a construct closely linked to belonging, predicts the adolescent civic engagement (Lenzi et al., 2013). It also gives rise to questions and concerns about students who do not feel a sense of local belonging. Do students benefit to the same degree from locally civically engaged classes if they do not share affiliations with the local community? Our results suggest that most students in Bee the CURE, even some without strong local affiliations, increased their science civic knowledge. However, we did not measure the degree to which this knowledge was increased or its potential utility to the local community. Furthermore, we did not consider how the local community would respond to students with or without local affiliations enacting science civic engagement beyond the AZ Bee Project. Some work (e.g., Hoekstra and Gerteis, 2019) suggests that belonging can be a gatekeeper mediating who is allowed to civically engage, and this is an important dynamic to consider as we introduce our students to these skills. Fields across discipline-based education research would benefit from investigations of how student belonging – local or scientific – influences students’ predictors of scientific civic engagement and how community members respond to students’ involvement in civically engaged projects.

Implications for instruction and research

Keeping in mind that this study does not seek to be broadly generalizable, we feel there are several points that instructors can consider when implementing PoP-CUREs in their courses. These are informed by our context, a Hispanic-serving community college, and our positionality.

Our study contributes to the broad and increasingly comprehensive literature describing CURE outcomes:

1. CUREs are broadly beneficial when implemented early in students’ undergraduate careers. Taken together with prior research (e.g., Estrada et al., 2016; Dolan 2016; Rodenbusch et al., 2016; Esparza et al., 2020; Wilczek et al., 2022; Majka et al., 2023), this study adds to the support for CUREs as a useful tool for increasing students' science self-efficacy and science identity, two critical predictors of persistence in STEM, for early career STEM students. In particular, this study contributes new information as it occurred at an CC that is also an HSI.

2. Mastery experiences arising from conducting and communicating research through DNA sequence uploads to BOLD and community poster sessions contribute to these outcomes. Much like prior work (e.g., Usher and Pajares, 2008, Chemers et al., 2011; Hurtado and Ruiz, 2012; Graham et al., 2013; Hanauer and Dolan, 2014, Hanauer et al., 2016; Robnett et. al., 2015), our study again emphasizes that mastery experiences and the broad relevance of student work contribute to science identity. While this is not surprising, it is affirming to see this result again arise in a new context.

Our study also contributes new information regarding scientific civic engagement and CUREs that seek to engage students in research that is relevant to both the broader scientific community and the local community in which the course takes place.

1. Students can experience increases in science identity when communicating findings to local stakeholders. Several of the students in our study connected feeling like a scientist specifically to when they reported their results to the museum volunteers (i.e., local stakeholders) at the poster session. The students knew that the volunteers had collected the bees and were affiliated with the Tucson Bee Collaborative and the Sonoran Desert Museum's long-standing effort to survey native bees. The students expressed that having “community members” who “cared about the results” and showed enthusiasm about their work made them feel like a significant part of the science community. This lends credence to the idea that CUREs may effectively inspire science identity even when the stakeholders served by the science are not themselves credentialed experts in the field as long as these stakeholders care deeply about the science being produced.

2. Civic knowledge may be a highly tractable target for change, and instructors should consider how to make this knowledge (or the skills associated with generating it) more transferable. The only predictor of civic engagement that showed a statistically significant change from pre- to postcourse was scientific civic knowledge. Furthermore, we found strong evidence in our qualitative data that students had, indeed, increased their scientific civic knowledge. Often this was expressed as statements reflecting how they would use skills learned in class to serve the local community. Rarely, this extended beyond skills learned in the course to other skills or knowledge or to other communities. Thus, there is an opportunity for instructors to engage students with the community to improve their civic knowledge and to consider how to make this knowledge more transferable.

3. Belonging to a local community should be considered as a moderating factor in students' experience and is likely to influence civic engagement outcomes. In our qualitative data, we observed that students with high levels of local belonging were able to articulate more specifically how they might help the local community (i.e., they had more specific scientific civic knowledge related to the local community). This raises questions about whether these students might have an advantage in achieving scientific civic outcomes above and beyond those who enter the class with lower levels of local belonging. Instructors should carefully consider how this may be influencing student outcomes when choosing CURE projects and more research should be done to understand this relationship.

Prior literature has found that when students interact with members of the community in an environmental education program (similar to Bee the CURE) students build the potential for life-long civic engagement, and civic engagement-related outcomes increase (Ardoin et al., 2023). However, mechanisms for how and why increased capacity for civic engagement occurs are often left uninvestigated. Our work starts to address these questions in the CURE context by examining changes in PSCE during a community engaged CURE. We hope that this work helps to inform the field and that instructors consider connecting students to opportunities in the community and create links between on-campus clubs and community engagement. There is also an opportunity for instructors and administrators to support and facilitate students in designing their own civic engagement programs or participatory action research (e.g., Koo et al., 2021). This type of support will bring more opportunities for students and instructors alike to reflect on the nature and impacts of the research being conducted. While this type of instructional engagement requires effort and organization-related to connecting with community partners, the benefits to the students, the institution, and the community could have a highly positive impact.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this study is that it investigates a particular course for one particular institution. While this limits the generalizability of our results, it enables us to characterize the experience of a community-engaged CC CURE at an HSI. Furthermore, this study examines the experience of students who self-selected into the study. Thus, our research does not represent students who did not participate. This study represents a demographically limited sample that focuses on white and Hispanic students. However, this is an HSI, and the Hispanic student population is one of the most rapidly growing demographics in the US in higher education. Thus, while this population is limited, it is highly important to better understand the experiences of this population in particular. Furthermore, this study relies on a relatively small sample of students and does not have the power to detect small effects of the variables tested. Thus, the negative results (i.e., a lack of an observed statistical difference) reported in this study should be taken with caution. The quantitative data are not independent in that students were all in the same class in each semester, and the paired observations were not drawn at random, and there is not a treatment or control group. All students had access to the same teaching mode and materials throughout both iterations of the CURE. This limits causal inferences from the quantitative data alone. However, our mixed-methods design helps us to better infer potential mechanisms and possible causes of our observed quantitative data. Long-term data about student civic engagement using their science skills as a result of participating in a PoP-CURE is not yet available but would be beneficial to investigate in the future. Further, we do not have information about student's experience with other community engagement before or during this course which could impact the students-reported PSCE scores. Another limitation of this study is that we did not collect data on the outcomes or experiences of the community members with whom students interacted. Designing future PoP-CURE studies to specifically collect data about the community participants and their interactions with students is an important next step in understanding the overall value of PoP-CUREs in undergraduate education. Despite these limitations, this work can inform future directions for the investigation of PoP-CUREs and other community-engaged courses as it draws on two data sources (surveys and interviews) for a population of great interest (CC students attending an HSI) due to its potential to contribute to a more diverse STEM workforce.

REFERENCES

• Abelman, R., & Dalessandro, A. (2008). The institutional vision of community colleges: Assessing style as well as substance. Community College Review, 35(4), 306–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552108315604 Google Scholar
• Adkins-Jablonsky, S. J., Akscyn, R., Bennett, B. C., Roberts, Q., & Morris, J. J. (2020). Is Community Relevance Enough? Civic and Science Identity Impact of Microbiology CUREs Focused on Community Environmental Justice. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11, December, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.578520 Medline, Google Scholar
• Alam, I., Ramirez, K., Semsar, K., & Corwin, L. A. (2022). Predictors of Scientific Civic Engagement (PSCE) Survey: A Multidimensional Instrument to Measure Undergraduates’ Attitudes, Knowledge, and Intention to Engage with the Community Using Their Science Skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-02-0032 Google Scholar
• Alderfer, S., McMillan, R., Murphy, K., & Kelp, N. (2023). Inclusive Science Communication training for first-year STEM students promotes their identity and self-efficacy as scientists and science communicators. Frontiers in Education, 8, August. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1173661 Google Scholar
• Allen, J. M., Muragishi, G. A., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., & Brown, E. R. (2015). To grab and to hold: Cultivating communal goals to overcome cultural and structural barriers in first-generation college students’ science interest. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000046 Medline, Google Scholar
• Ambrosino, C. M., & Rivera, M. A. J. (2022). A longitudinal analysis of developing marine science identity in a place-based, undergraduate research experience. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00386-4 Google Scholar
• Ardoin, N. M., Bowers, A. W., & Gaillard, E. (2023). A systematic mixed studies review of civic engagement outcomes in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 29(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2135688 Google Scholar
• Asai, D. J. (2020). Race matters. Cell, 181(4), 754–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.044 Medline, Google Scholar
• Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I., & Dolan, E. L. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: A meeting report. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-01-0004 Link, Google Scholar
• Ballard, H. L., Harris, E. M., & Dixon, C. G. H. (2018). Science Identity and Agency in Community and Citizen Science : Evidence & Potential. 1–26. Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146‐6402(78)90002‐4 Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and theory: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In: S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people (Vol. 1, pp. 167–196). Wesport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Company. Google Scholar
• Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 602–606. Link, Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Google Scholar
• Beckham, J. T., Simmons, S., Stovall, G. M., & Farre, J. (2015). The freshman research initiative as a model for addressing shortages and disparities in STEM engagement. In M. A. PetersonY. A. Rubenstein (Eds.), Directions for Mathematics Research Experience for Undergraduates (pp. 181–212). Singapore: World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814630320_0010 Google Scholar
• Bobek, D., Zaff, J., Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of civic action: Towards an integrated measure of civic engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.005 Google Scholar
• Bolger, M. S., Osness, J. B., Gouvea, J. S., & Cooper, A. C. (2021). Supporting scientific practice through model-based inquiry: A students’-eye view of grappling with data, uncertainty, and community in a laboratory experience. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0128 Medline, Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage. Google Scholar
• Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. (2009). Innovative practices in service-learning and curricular engagement. New Directions for Higher Education, 2009(147), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.356 Google Scholar
• Castonguay, F. M., Blackwood, J. C., Howerton, E., Shea, K., Sims, C., & Sanchirico, J. N. (2023). Optimal spatial evaluation of a pro rata vaccine distribution rule for COVID-19. Scientific Reports, 13(2194). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28697-8 Medline, Google Scholar
• Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x Google Scholar
• Chen, S., Binning, K. R., Manke, K. J., Brady, S. T., McGreevy, E. M., Betancur, L., ... & Kaufmann, N. (2021). Am I a Science Person? A Strong Science Identity Bolsters Minority Students’ Sense of Belonging and Performance in College. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(4), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220936480 Medline, Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2014). The American community college, 6th ed., San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Community College Research Center (CCRC). Community College FAQs. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/community-college-faqs.html Google Scholar
• Community College Research Center (CCRC) (2023). Community College FAQs. Retrieved October 12, 2023, from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/community-college-faqs.html Google Scholar
• Cooper, K. M., Blattman, J. N., Hendrix, T., & Brownell, S. E. (2019). The impact of broadly relevant novel discoveries on student project ownership in a traditional lab course turned CURE. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-06-0113 Link, Google Scholar
• Corwin, L. A., Graham, M. J., & Dolan, E. L. (2015). Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: An agenda for future research and evaluation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-10-0167 Google Scholar
• Corwin, L. A., Runyon, C. R., Ghanem, E., Sandy, M., Clark, G., Palmer, G. C., ... & Dolan, E. L. (2018). Effects of discovery, iteration, and collaboration in laboratory courses on undergraduates' research career intentions fully mediated by student ownership. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(2, ar20), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-07-0141 Google Scholar
• Cumsille, P., & Martínez, M. L. (2015). La escuela como contexto de socialización política: Influencias colectivas e individuales. In C. Cox & J. C. Castillo (Eds.), Aprendizaje de la Ciudadanía: Contextos, Experiencias y Aprendizajes (pp. 431–457). Santiago: Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile. Google Scholar
• Dalbotten, D., Ito, E., Myrbo, A., Pellerin, H., Greensky, L., Howes, T., ... & Yellowman, T. (2014). NSF-OEDG Manoomin Science Camp Project: A model for engaging American Indian students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.5408/12-408.1 Google Scholar
• Daniels, K. N., Billingsley, K. Y., Billingsley, J., Long, Y., & Young, D. (2015). Impacting resilience and persistence in underrepresented populations through service-learning. Journal for Multicultural Education, 9(3), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-02-2015-0005 Google Scholar
• Data USA. https://datausa.io/ (accessed 15 October 2023) Google Scholar
• Dauer, J. M., Lute, M. L., & Straka, O. (2017). Indicators of informal and formal decision- making about a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.05787 Google Scholar
• Dauer, J. M., Sorensen, A. E., & Wilson, J. (2021). Students’ Civic Engagement Self-Efficacy Varies Across Socioscientific Issues Contexts. Frontiers in Education, 6, May, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.628784 Google Scholar
• DeHaven, B., Sato, B., Mello, J., Hill, T., Syed, J., & Patel, R. (2022). Bootleg Biology: A Semester-Long CURE Using Wild Yeast to Brew Beer. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23(3), e00336-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00336-21 Medline, Google Scholar
• Demarest, A. B. (2014). Place-based Curriculum Design: Exceeding Standards through Local Investigations (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795195 Google Scholar
• Denson, C. D. (2017). The MESA study. Journal of Technology Education, 29(1), 66–94. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v29i1.a.4 Google Scholar
• Diekman, A. B., Clark, E. K., Johnston, A. M., Brown, E. R., & Steinberg, M. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199 Medline, Google Scholar
• Diekman, A. B., Weisgram, E. S., & Belanger, A. L. (2015). New routes to recruiting and retaining women in STEM: Policy implications of a communal goal congruity perspective. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 52–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12010 Google Scholar
• Dolan, E. L. (2016). Course-based undergraduate research experiences: Current knowledge and future directions. Commissioned for Committee on Strengthening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM students. Retrieved from https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_177288.pdf Google Scholar
• Doolittle, A., & Faul, A. C. (2013). Civic engagement scale: A validation study. SAGE Open, 3(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013495542 Google Scholar
• Dressel, M. (2022). Models of science and society: Transcending the antagonism. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01261-x Google Scholar
• Dunbar-Wallis, A., Katcher, J., Moore, W., & Corwin, L. A. (2024). An Online CURE Taught at a Community College During the Pandemic Shows Mixed Results for Development of Research Self Efficacy and In class Relationships. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33, 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10078-5 Google Scholar
• Encina, Y., & Berger, C. (2021). Civic behavior and sense of belonging at school: The moderating role of school climate. Child Indicators Research, 14, 1453–1477. Google Scholar
• Engel, K. H. (2006). Mitigating global climate change in the United States: A regional approach. N.Y.U. Environmental Law Journal, 14(1), 54–85. Google Scholar
• Eppinga, M. B., de Scisciolo, T., & Mijts, E. N. (2019). Environmental science education in a small island state: Integrating theory and local experience. Environmental Education Research, 25(7), 1004–1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1552248 Google Scholar
• Esparza, D., Wagler, A. E., & Olimpo, J. T. (2020). Characterization of instructor and student behaviors in CURE and non-CURE learning environments: Impacts on student motivation, science identity development, and perceptions of the laboratory experience. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(1), ar10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-04-0082 Link, Google Scholar
• Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G., ... & Zavala, M. E. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in stem. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038 Google Scholar
• Estrada, M., Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2011). Toward a model of social influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020743 Medline, Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. Medline, Google Scholar
• Fried, Erin, Martin, A., Esler, A., Tran, A., & Corwin, L. (2020). Design-Based Learning for a Sustainable Future: Student Outcomes Resulting from a Biomimicry Curriculum in an Evolution Course. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00136-6 Google Scholar
• Gin, L. E., Rowland, A. A., Steinwand, B., Bruno, J., & Corwin, L. A. (2018). Students Who Fail to Achieve Predefined Research Goals May Still Experience Many Positive Outcomes as a Result of CURE Participation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(4), ar57. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-03-0036 Link, Google Scholar
• Goodwin, E. C., Anokhin, V., Gray, M. J., Zajic, D. E., Podrabsky, J. E., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2021). Is this science? Students' experiences of failure make a research-based course feel authentic. CBE Life Sciences Education, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-07-0149 Google Scholar
• Gomes, K. R. R., Perera, H. N., Thibbotuwawa, A., & Sunil-Chandra, N. P. (2023). Comparative analysis of lean and agile supply chain strategies for effective vaccine distribution in pandemics: A case study of COVID-19 in a densely populated developing region. Supply Chain Analytics, 3, June, 100022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sca.2023.100022 Google Scholar
• Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A. B., & Handelsman, J. (2013). Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455–1456. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240487 Medline, Google Scholar
• Gruenewald, D. A. (2014). Place-based education: Grounding culturally responsive teaching in geographical diversity. In Place-based education in the global age New York, NY: Routledge, 161–178. Google Scholar
• Halsey, L. G., Curran-Everett, D., Vowler, S. L., & Drummond, G. B. (2015). The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods, 12(3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3288 Medline, Google Scholar
• Hanauer, D. I., & Dolan, E. L. (2014). The Project Ownership Survey: Measuring Differences in Scientific Inquiry Experiences. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0123 Link, Google Scholar
• Hanauer, D. I., Frederick, J., Fotinakes, B., & Strobel, S. A. (2012). Linguistic analysis of project ownership for undergraduate research experiences. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-04-0043 Link, Google Scholar
• Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., Betancur, L., Bobrownicki, A., Cresawn, S. G., Garlena, R. A., ... & Hatfull, G. F. (2017). An inclusive Research Education Community (iREC): Impact of the SEA-PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(51), 13531–13536. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718188115 Medline, Google Scholar
• Hanauer, D. I., Graham, M. J., & Hatfull, G. F. (2016). A measure of college student persistence in the sciences (PITS). CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-09-0185 Google Scholar
• Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Giffen, C. J., Blair, S. S., Rouse, D. I., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Closing the social class achievement gap for first-generation students in undergraduate biology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034679 Medline, Google Scholar
• Harackiewicz, J. M., Hecht, C. A., Asher, M. W., Beymer, P. N., Lamont, L. B., Wheeler, N. S., … & Thoman, D. B. (2023). A prosocial value intervention in gateway STEM courses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(6), 1265–1307. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000356 Medline, Google Scholar
• Hewitt, K. M., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., Kitada, H., Mason, R., & Kayes, L. J. (2019). Introductory biology in social context: The effects of an issues-based laboratory course on biology student motivation. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar30. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-07-0110 Link, Google Scholar
• Hoekstra, E., & Gerteis, J. (2019). The Civic Side of Diversity: Ambivalence and Belonging at the Neighborhood Level. City & Community, 18(1), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12363 Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
• Holland, D. G., Harper, R. P., Hunter, A. B., Weston, T. J., Seymour, E. (2019). The Processes and Consequences of Switching, Including the Loss of High-Performing STEM Majors. In: E. SeymourA. B. Hunter (Eds.), Talking about Leaving Revisited (pp. 329–369). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2_10 Google Scholar
• Hoskinson, A. M., Caballero, M. D., & Knight, J. K. (2013). How can we improve problem solving in undergraduate biology? Applying lessons from 30 years of physics education research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-09-0149 Link, Google Scholar
• Huntington-Klein, N. (2022). _vtable: Variable Table for Variable Documentation_. R package version 1.4.1, Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vtable. Google Scholar
• Hurtado, S., Newman, C. B., Tran, M. C., & Chang, M. J. (2010). Improving the rate of success for underrepresented racial minorities in STEM fields: Insights from a national project. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.357 Google Scholar
• Hurtado, S., & Ruiz, A. (2012). The climate for underrepresented groups and diversity on campus. American Academy of Political and Social Science, 634(1), 190–206. Google Scholar
• Jackson, M. C., Galvez, G., Landa, I., Buonora, P., & Thoman, D. B. (2016). Science that matters: The importance of a cultural connection in underrepresented students’ science pursuit. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0067 Google Scholar
• Jaeger, D., Bilinski, T., Dunbar-Wallis, A., Alam, I., & Corwin, L. (2024). “The Power of Place: A Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience Studying Urban Ecology, Local Apple Trees and Disease Susceptibility.” CourseSource, Google Scholar
• Jensen, P. A., & Moore, R. (2008). Students’ Behaviors, Grades & Perceptions in an Introductory Biology Course. The American Biology Teacher, 70(8), 483–487. https://doi.org/10.2307/30163330 Google Scholar
• Jha, G., Kankarla, V., McLennon, E., Pal, S., Sihi, D., Dari, B., ... & Nocco, M. (2021). Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in integrated crop–livestock systems: Environmental exposure and human health risks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312550 Google Scholar
• Johnson, M. D., Sprowles, A. E., Goldenberg, K. R., Margell, S. T., & Castellino, L. (2020). Effect of a Place-Based Learning Community on Belonging, Persistence, and Equity Gaps for First-Year STEM Students. Innovative Higher Education, 45(6), 509–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09519-5 Medline, Google Scholar
• Kobziar, L. N., Vuono, D., Moore, R., Christner, B. C., Dean, T., Betancourt, D., ... & Gullett, B. (2022). Wildland fire smoke alters the composition, diversity, and potential atmospheric function of microbial life in the aerobiome. ISME Communications, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43705-022-00089-5 Medline, Google Scholar
• Koo, B. W., Bathia, S., Morell, L., Gochyyev, P., Phillips, M., Wilson, M., & Smith, R. (2021). Examining the Effects of a Peer-Learning Research Community on the Development of Students’ Researcher Identity, Confidence, and STEM Interest and Engagement. The Journal of STEM Outreach, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.15695/jstem/v4i1.05 Google Scholar
• Kowalski, J. R., Hoops, G. C., & Johnson, R. J. (2016). Implementation of a collaborative series of classroom-based undergraduate research experiences spanning chemical biology, biochemistry, and neurobiology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-02-0089 Google Scholar
• Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121. Medline, Google Scholar
• Le, P. T., Doughty, L., Thompson, A. N., & Hartley, L. M. (2019). Investigating undergraduate biology students’ science identity production. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-10-0204 Google Scholar
• Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2013). Neighborhood social connectedness and adolescent civic engagement: An integrative model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 45–54. Google Scholar
• Leonetti, C. T., Lindberg, H., Schwake, D. O., & Cotter, R. L. (2023). A Call to Assess the Impacts of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences for Career and Technical Education, Allied Health, and Underrepresented Students at Community Colleges. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-11-0318 Google Scholar
• Levy, B. L. M., Oliveira, A. W., & Harris, C. B. (2021). The potential of “civic science education”: Theory, research, practice, and uncertainties. Science Education, 105(6), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21678 Google Scholar
• Lindenmayer, D. B., Taylor, C., Blanchard, W., Zylstra, P. J., & Evans, M. J. (2023). What environmental and climatic factors influence multi-decadal fire frequency? Ecosphere, May, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4610 Google Scholar
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. Medline, Google Scholar
• López-Fernández, M. del M., González-García, F., & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2022). How Can Socio-scientific Issues Help Develop Critical Thinking in Chemistry Education? A Reflection on the Problem of Plastics. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(10), 3435–3442. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00223 Google Scholar
• Majka, E. A., Bennett, K. F., Sawyer, T. P., Johnson, J. L., & Guenther, M. F. (2023). An Interdisciplinary STEM Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience Establishes a Community of Practice and Promotes Psychosocial Gains. Journal of College Science Teaching, 52(4), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2023.12290632 Google Scholar
• Malotky, M. K. H., Mayes, K. M., Price, K. M., Smith, G., Mann, S. N., Guinyard, M. W., ... & Bernot, K. M. (2020). Fostering Inclusion through an Interinstitutional, Community-Engaged, Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1939 Medline, Google Scholar
• Martin, B. A., Rechs, A., Landerholm, T., & Mcdonald, K. (2021). Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences Spanning Two Semesters of Biology Impact Student Self-Efficacy but not Future Goals. Journal of College Science and Teaching, 50(4) Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Google Scholar
• Michel, B. C., Fulp, S., Drayton, D., & Burns White, K. (2021). Best Practices to Support Early-Stage Career URM Students with Virtual Enhancements to In-Person Experiential Learning. The Journal of STEM Outreach, 4(3), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.15695/jstem/v4i3.01 Google Scholar
• Misal, H., Varela, E., Voulgarakis, A., Rovithakis, A., Grillakis, M., & Kountouris, Y. (2023). Assessing public preferences for a wildfire mitigation policy in Crete, Greece. Forest Policy and Economics, 153(May), 102976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102976 Google Scholar
• Moely, B., McFarland, M., Miron, D., Mercer, S., & Illustre, V. (2002). Changes in college students’ attitudes and intentions for civic involvement as a function of service-learning experiences. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 18–26. Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mjcsl/3239521.0009.102?rgn=main;view=fulltext Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. M., & Kelp, N. C. (2023). Undergraduate STEM Students’ Science Communication Skills, Science Identity, and Science Self-Efficacy Influence Their Motivations and Behaviors in STEM Community Engagement. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00182-22 Medline, Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2021). The STEM Labor Force of Today: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical Workers. Science & Engineering Indicators, 2022(2), 92. Google Scholar
• Newell, M. J., & Ulrich, P. N. (2022). Gains in Scientific Identity, Scientific Self-Efficacy, and Career Intent Distinguish Upper-Level CUREs from Traditional Experiences in the Classroom. 13. Google Scholar
• Olimpo, J. T., Apodaca, J., Hernandez, A., & Paat, Y. F. (2019). Disease and the environment: A health disparities CURE incorporating civic engagement education. Science Education and Civic Engagement, 11(1), 13–24. Google Scholar
• Olimpo, J. T., Fisher, G. R., & Dechenne-Peters, S. E. (2016). Development and evaluation of the tigriopus course-based undergraduate research experience: Impacts on students' content knowledge, attitudes, and motivation in a majors introductory biology course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-11-0228 Medline, Google Scholar
• Osterhage, J. L. (2021). Persistent Miscalibration for Low and High Achievers despite Practice Test Feedback in an Introductory Biology Course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00139-21 Medline, Google Scholar
• Pruett, J. L., & Weigel, E. G. (2020). Concept Map Assessment Reveals Short-Term Community-Engaged Fieldwork Enhances Sustainability Knowledge. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(3), ar38. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-02-0031 Link, Google Scholar
• Robnett, R. D., Chemers, M. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2015). Longitudinal associations among undergraduates’ research experience, self-efficacy, and identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 847–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21221 Google Scholar
• Rodenbusch, S. E., Hernandez, P. R., Simmons, S. L., & Dolan, E. L. (2016). Early Engagement in Course-Based Research Increases Graduation Rates and Completion of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Degrees. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0117 Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, J. E. (2020). Associations between Civic Engagement and Community College Completion in a Nationally Representative Sample of Young Adults. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 2021;45(7), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1724574 Medline, Google Scholar
• RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA: www.rstudio.com/ Google Scholar
• Saldana, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd ed., London: Sage. Google Scholar
• Sandrone, S. (2022). Science Identity and Its “Identity Crisis”: On Science Identity and Strategies to Foster Self-Efficacy and Sense of Belonging in STEM. Frontiers in Education, 7, July). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.871869 Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A. (2022). Thirty years of science–society interfaces: What's next? Public Understanding of Science, 31(3), 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221075947 Medline, Google Scholar
• Semken, S., Ward, E. G., Moosavi, S., & Chinn, P. W. U. (2017). Place-Based Education in Geoscience: Theory, Research, Practice, and Assessment. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(4), 542–562. https://doi.org/10.5408/17-276.1 Google Scholar
• Simonneaux, L. (2013). Troy D. Sadler: Socio-Scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research. Science & Education, 22(3), 723–728. Google Scholar
• Smith, J. L., Cech, E., Metz, A., Huntoon, M., & Moyer, C. (2014). Giving back or giving up: Native American student experiences in science and engineering. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036945 Medline, Google Scholar
• Smith, L. F. (2003). Why clinical programs should embrace civic engagement, service learning and community based research. Clinical Law Review, 10, 723. Google Scholar
• Sparks, R. A., Jimenez, P. C., Kirby, C. K., & Dauer, J. M. (2022). Using Critical Integrative Argumentation to Assess Socioscientific Argumentation across Decision-Making Contexts. Education Sciences, 12(10), ar20. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100644 Google Scholar
• Stanfield, E., Slown, C. D., Sedlacek, Q., & Worcester, S. E. (2022). A Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) in Biology: Developing Systems Thinking through Field Experiences in Restoration Ecology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0300 Google Scholar
• Suran, M. (2022). EPA Takes Action Against Harmful “forever Chemicals” in the US Water Supply. Jama, 328(18), 1795–1797. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.12678 Medline, Google Scholar
• Tamburini, D., Torres, R., Kuemmerle, T., Levers, C., & Nori, J. (2023). Priority areas for promoting co-benefits between conservation and the traditional use of mammals and birds in the Chaco. Biological Conservation, 277(November 2022), 109827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109827 Google Scholar
• Tibbetts, Y., Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Boston, J. S., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Supplemental Material for Affirming Independence: Exploring Mechanisms Underlying a Values Affirmation Intervention for First-Generation Students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(5), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000049.supp Medline, Google Scholar
• Trott, C. D., Sample McMeeking, L. B., & Weinberg, A. E. (2019). Participatory action research experiences for undergraduates: Forging critical connections through community engagement. Studies in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1602759 Medline, Google Scholar
• Trujillo, G., & Tanner, K. D. (2014). Considering the role of affect in learning: Monitoring students’ self-efficacy, sense of belonging, and science identity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0241 Link, Google Scholar
• Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of Self-Efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456 Google Scholar
• Varty, A. K. (2022). Promoting Achievement for Community College STEM Students through Equity-Minded Practices. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 21(2), ar25. https://doi.org/10.1187/CBE.21-09-0237 Medline, Google Scholar
• Warfa, A.-R. M. (2016). Mixed-Methods Design in Biology Education Research: Approach and Uses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), rm5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0022 Link, Google Scholar
• Weber, P. S., Weber, J. E., Sleeper, B. J., & Schneider, K. C. (2004). Self-efficacy toward service, civic participation and the business student: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(4), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000020881.58352.ab Google Scholar
• Wee, S. Y., & Aris, A. Z. (2023). Revisiting the “forever chemicals”, PFOA and PFOS exposure in drinking water. Npj Clean Water, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-023-00274-6 Google Scholar
• Weisgram, E. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Girls and science careers: The role of altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 326–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2006.04.004 Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York:. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, Retrieved from https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org Google Scholar
• Wilczek, L. A., Clarke, A. J., Del Carmen Guerrero Martinez, M., & Morin, J. B. (2022). Catalyzing the Development of Self-Efficacy and Science Identity: A Green Organic Chemistry CURE. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(12), 3878–3887. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00352 Google Scholar
• Woodhouse, J. L., & Knapp, C. E. (2011). ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education, and Small Schools. Place-Based Curriculum and Instruction: Outdoor and Environmental Education Approaches. ERIC Digest. Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Appalachia Educational Laboratory, 2000. https://books.google.com/books?id=oH7TlnMJWqkC Google Scholar