June 6th, 2025

Take a CHANCE: Assessing a Virtual and International Undergraduate Research Experience in Sustainability Education

By Jacqueline McLaughlin and Laura Cruz

Link to JSE General Issue May 2025 Table of Contents

McLaughlin Cruz JSE May 2025 General Issue PDF

 

Abstract:  The present survey-based study assesses the cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes associated with student participation in a virtual, bi-national, mentored undergraduate research experience focused on sustainability issues in the regions of southeastern Europe through which the Danube River flows. The perceived gains in ability, beliefs, and benefits enabled through this fully virtual iteration of the pedagogical model suggest that programs that integrate multiple high-impact practices (in this case, undergraduate research and global learning), have the potential to be transformative for participating students, regardless of their country of origin, and to contribute towards the growth of an increasingly diverse and globally oriented STEM workforce and to foster the next generation of global citizens actively engaged in the work of environmental sustainability. Findings also reflect upon the growing need to develop similar virtual exchange modalities to tackle systemic equity and access issues in sustainability education, and the need to advance assessment tools that are both culturally responsive and broadly relevant in bi-national/transnational courses and/or programming.

 

Keywords: Mentored Undergraduate Research in Global Context (MUR-GC), Course-based undergraduate research (CURE), high impact practice (HIP), sustainability education, virtual MUR-GC

 

Introduction

Addressing the future challenges of global environmental sustainability will require the development of a well-rounded workforce that is trained in all aspects of sustainability work, including a range of scientific skills. There is reason to believe that current levels may be insufficient to meet these future needs (Kizilcec et al., 2023; Salzman & Benderly, 2019; Stevenson, 2014; Xue & Larson, 2015). While the phenomenon has been perhaps most closely studied in the United States, research suggests that the gap widens when measured in a global context, with many countries placing increasing strategic emphasis on growing a highly skilled, diverse STEM workforce at the national level (Freeman et al., 2019).  This political imperative has fueled extensive research in science education, with an agenda aimed at first identifying the leaks in the STEM pipeline, and then developing broad-scale, evidence-based interventions to be implemented across all appropriate levels of education. The present study assesses the impact of the binational work of a program called Connecting Humans and Nature through Conservation Experiences (CHANCE) in Romania, which seeks to strengthen multi-national interest in sustainability education through distinctive and evolving combinations of research, short-term study abroad, and environmental advocacy.

 

Literature Review

As previously mentioned, the CHANCE program consists of three primary components: undergraduate research, short-term study abroad, and environmental advocacy. Taken separately, each of these components have been the subject of considerable attention in the research literature on student success, whether specifically in STEM-related fields, more broadly across higher education, or both (McLaughlin et al., 2018; McLaughlin, 2010; McLaughlin & Fadigan, 2010).

 

Course-based Undergraduate Research

At the collegiate level, undergraduate research has emerged as a prominent strategy for engaging and retaining students in STEM majors (Fechheimer et al., 2011; Fischer et al., 2021; Webber et al., 2013).  The practice allows students to engage in hands-on scientific work, often in a laboratory setting, under the mentorship of experienced faculty and/or advanced graduate students.  Initial research on the practice emphasized how such experiences developed critical STEM skills, but later research has extended the benefits to include non-cognitive factors, such as the strengthening of scientific identity and, by extension, the flow of graduates into the STEM workforce (Brownell et al., 2015; Finley, 2019; McLaughlin et al., 2020).  Indeed, the effectiveness of undergraduate research experiences was sufficiently documented as contributing to student success that the practice was identified by George Kuh (and colleagues) as one of seven high-impact practices in 2008 (Kilgo et al., 2012; Kuh, 2008; Kuh, 2016; Lopatto, 2010).

By definition, high impact practices require an investment of resources, whether money, time, or support, beyond conventional learning experiences.  While these additional resources are justified by demonstrably higher retention and graduation rates, this set of circumstances often exists in a state of tension with equity and inclusion goals (Hensel, 2023).  Traditionally, undergraduate research in STEM has been limited to a small percentage of students who possess the academic skills, motivation, and time to pursue either independent studies or work in advanced laboratory settings (Beckman & Hensel, 2009).  To broaden participation, practitioners proposed the course-based undergraduate research experience, or CURE, in which undergraduate research activities are embedded directly into course-based instruction (Bangera & Brownell, 2014; Corwin et al., 2015; Hensel, 2018; Hensel, 2023; O’Donnell et al., 2015).

While there is not a single framework for CUREs, one prevalent model consists of collaborative learning experiences, in which students work in teams to conduct inquiry-driven, laboratory or field-based experiments (Ahmad & Al-Thani, 2022; Auchincloss et al., 2014).  In many cases, too, there is an emphasis on building teams that are inter- or cross-disciplinary in composition. While CUREs are most associated with STEM education, the benefits have also been documented outside of these fields (Ruth et al., 2023) and in several interdisciplinary domains, including sustainability education (Callahan et al., 2023; Messager et al., 2022). Advocates believe that, regardless of disciplinary orientation, the CURE model has the potential to expand the demonstrable benefits of undergraduate research experiences to more students and, potentially, in more places (Bangera & Brownell, 2014).

 

Global Exchange

Like undergraduate research, global education has also been identified as a high-impact practice , though the scope of that term has been the subject of considerable debate (Haupt & Ogden, 2019).   In the original high impact practice framework, the practice focused largely on study abroad experiences, most often intensive (e.g., semester or year-long) and involving physical travel to other parts of the world, but that definition has expanded in both scale and scope to include a wide variety of short-term, long-term, physical, and virtual exchanges.  In addition to increasing student success, research has shown that global education experiences contribute to other increasingly desired workforce outcomes such as intercultural competence and communication (Bender et al., 2009; Fisher et al., 2023; Iskhakova & Bradly, 2022).

In its conventional form (physical and intensive), study abroad has been subject to similar concerns about access and equity as with undergraduate research experiences, with numerous studies pointing out the extent to which students from under-served populations have been significantly under-represented in study abroad programs; and others highlighting additional inequities that can arise with extended physical travel to locations outside of the home country, such as mobility, safety, and access to medical care  (Glass & Gesing, 2021; Lopez-McGee & Contreras, 2023; Ohito et al., 2021; Slotkin et al., 2012; Stewart & Nicolazzo, 2018; Sweeney, 2013; Whatley & Clayton, 2020; Whatley & Stich, 2021). To address these inequities, advocates have developed short-term (and, by extension, lower cost) and/or virtual exchanges as potential alternatives that may enhance accessibility for both individuals and institutions (Diehl et al., 2024; Helm & Guth, 2022), perhaps with minimal sacrifice of the positive effects on success (Fisher et al., 2023; O’Dowd, 2021).  The development of short-term virtual exchanges was accelerated by the global quarantines that arose from the COVID-19 pandemic, but these partnerships have continued to proliferate in the current post-pandemic climate, not only as a means of enhancing access (Beelen & Doscher, 2022) but also supporting environmental sustainability (e.g. saving jet fuel) (Jaskolski & Udoh, 2022).

 

Mentored Undergraduate Research in Global Contexts (MUR-GC)

Outside of institutional data, much of the learning research on high impact practices has tended to focus on individual high impact practices, often in isolation from others.  More recently, there has been increased interest in stacked or integrated high impact practices (Schaab, 2023), which are characterized by a combination of practices, such as a learning community embedded into a first-year seminar, or, perhaps most salient to the current study, undergraduate research and global education, recently deemed mentored undergraduate research in global contexts, or MUR-GC (Banks & Gutiérrez, 2017; Bender et al., 2017; Cruz et al. 2024; Hamel et al., 2021).  The rationale for MUR-GC rests on the increasing globalization of both knowledge and work, suggesting that students benefit from working with globally diverse teams to address complex questions with global implications, such as, in this case, environmental sustainability.

The aspiration is for stacked high impact practices to encompass the documented benefits of the contributing practices, but also to engender additional potential outcomes arising from the integration (Cruz et al., 2023). This may be especially the case in STEM fields, where the integration of undergraduate research into global learning is believed to make practices such as study abroad more appealing and address persistent under-representation of these fields in many forms of global education (Giedt et al., 2015).   Research on MUR-GC is in the early stages and there is much to be learned about how this combination of transformative learning experiences intersects with student learning, success, and development (Acheson et al., 2024; Cruz et al., 2022) as well as across different instructional modalities.

 

Virtual Exchange/Online Undergraduate Research 

While virtual exchange is gaining ground as the focus of both research and practice, undergraduate research in the online environment is comparatively under-studied (Coleman et al., 2023; Faulconer et al., 2022), especially outside of the remote learning (COVID-19) context (Broussard et al., 2021; Ediger et al., 2024; Fey et al., 2020; Lopatto et al., 2023).  A recent systematic review of research on CUREs (from 2015-2021) indicated no studies for which the CURE was conducted virtually nor was modality included as a variable in the models derived from the review (Ahmad & Thani, 2022).   Similarly, examples of online or virtual MUR-GC are sufficiently rare that the authors were not able to locate a single published example, even after extensive searching.

The present study assesses a distinctive MUR-GC initiative undertaken by the CHANCE program in Romania, dubbed CHANCE Romania, that intentionally combines CUREs with virtual exchange into a potentially replicable model of sustainability education.  The replicability was tested when circumstances forced a switch in modality during the Spring and Summer of 2021. Prior to the pandemic, the program had been implemented in multiple geo-political contexts combining online preparation with in-person fieldwork (Mclaughlin, 2021) but the present study seeks to assess the impact of a fully virtual iteration conducted in the Spring of 2021.   The primary research question is as follows: How do the learning outcomes of a virtual MUR-GC compare to those of a conventional (single institution, local, face-to-face) CURE in the context of global issues like sustainability education?

 

The CHANCE Program

The Danube River, which runs for 1800 miles through ten countries (including Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia), has a distinctive history of sustainability. Heavily polluted when bordering countries were industrializing under Soviet rule, the river began to recover in the 1990s but is now threatened again, particularly by the presence of microplastics, pesticides, and industrial waste (Galatchi and Tudor, 2006; Gasparotti, 2014; Gomez-Baggethun et al., 2019).

Throughout CHANCE programming in Romania (2021 – 2023), students worked to understand and contribute to the scientific research that is seeking to preserve the ecosystems of this vital waterway. The goal of all CHANCE worldwide initiatives is to prepare global-minded citizens who understand the importance of restoring and protecting the biodiversity of our planet’s ecosystems, and who are equipped with the skills to address the challenges of our time such as energy, air, food, water, and climate change in their lifetimes. Because ecosystems cross national borders, CHANCE strives to define sustainable answers for environmental realities from a global perspective. Typically, the CHANCE program operates in person, with students from Penn State University traveling to sites worldwide to work with international partners – be they faculty and students from other universities and/or professional scientists and conservationists from non-governmental organizations. During CHANCE Romania, students from Penn State and the University of Bucharest worked alongside faculty educators and scientists from both institutions within the delta of the Danube River, Romania to conduct their united research.

In the spring and summer of 2021, however, all international short-term study abroad field courses remained canceled for Penn State undergraduates, despite the return to regular instruction on the campus. CHANCE program leaders seized this opportunity to develop and implement a 3-credit, online binational course, Global Conservation: Environmental Challenges Facing the Danube Delta. During the second half of the spring 2021 semester (midsemester), select faculty from both universities mentored twenty-four students (twelve from Penn State and twelve from the University of Bucharest) of varied disciplines who carried out an online, binational course on the water quality of the Danube River basin using real data gathered in the field by a top-Romanian scientist. Students also learned about the water issues facing this river system, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) and essential research skills and “soft” skills deemed necessary to navigate more complex, inter-disciplinary societal challenges facing the Danube watershed due to anthropogenic activities.

Throughout this synchronous 7-week online course, students worked in binational teams (5 teams; consisting of 2 students from each participating university; one faculty mentor per group including the Romanian research scientist who supplied raw data and offered guidance to all groups on a constant basis) to ask a unique question related to the nutrient overload of nitrogen, a key player in cultural eutrophication (algal blooms), in the specific areas of the Danube delta wherein data was gathered. Students worked collectively in their groups to learn research methods involved in the water collection and analysis of their samples, read primary literature, interpret their authentic data, and then devise and report potential solutions for the sustainability of the Danube River and its delta per the UN SDGs to the entire class as well as a panel of invited visitors and guests from both countries.

 

The Study

Research Design and Instrument 

This is a survey-based study that uses a pre- and post-design to assess the outcomes of the CHANCE Romania program, which utilizes an interdisciplinary CURE model to study sustainability issues related to water in the Danube delta.  Pre- and post-test designs are commonly used in the study of pedagogical interventions in U.S. higher education (Bartsch, 2013; Clipperton et al., 2020) and, in this case, there is an established, previously validated survey that has been widely used to assess CUREs (Shortlidge & Brownell, 2016).  The survey creators have validated the survey internally, in comparison to related surveys, and across multiple contexts.

Indeed, the belief that CUREs may provide similar high-impact benefits to their non-course-based alternatives has served as the basis of a robust research agenda assessing the efficacy of CUREs, whether in comparison to undergraduate research experiences or, increasingly, as a robust instructional modality in its own right (Brownell & Kloser, 2019).  The cornerstone of CURE assessment is the CURE survey, developed and validated by a multi-institutional team led by David Lopatto at Grinnell College in Iowa (United States).  The 76-item survey, adapted from the broader SURE (Student Undergraduate Research Experience) survey, was actively administered at the U.S. national level starting in 2015.  Over the long term, this survey has served as a benchmark for the effectiveness of CUREs across a range of institutions, disciplines, modalities, and global circumstances (Lopatto & Jaworski, 2019).  The survey assesses self-reported learning gains, including scientific skills, attitudes, and goal orientation using a series of scaled items.  In addition, the survey includes six demographic questions (university enrollment, gender identity, age range, year of study, post-degree goals, and major).

 

Implementation 

The project (STUDY00017451) was approved by The Pennsylvania State University’s institutional review board (IRB) in early spring 2021. The research met the criteria for exempt research according to the policies of this institution and the provisions of applicable federal regulations. The implied consent statement for the survey was translated into Romanian to ensure transparency for the students from the University of Bucharest. The language of instruction was English so the research team, consisting of both U.S. and Romanian representatives, determined that it was not necessary to translate the full survey into Romanian. A member of the research team who was not an instructor created the electronic survey in institutional-owned Qualtrics.  This same member of the research team visited the Zoom space (without the instructor’s – who was also a member of the research team – presence) in which the students were meeting for the online course to recruit, administer consent, and provide participants with a link and QR code for accessing the survey. The survey procedure was repeated at the end of the 7-week online course. The students did not receive incentives to participate in either instance of the survey.  No identifying information was collected as part of the study. The overall participation rate was 96% (23 out of 24).

 

Participants 

The participants consisted of students enrolled in the course from either the Pennsylvania State University (n=12) or the University of Bucharest (n=12).  All participating students indicated that they were between 18 and 24 years of age; with 57% identifying as female (n=13) and 43% (n=10) identifying as male. Most participants were in either their first or second year at their respective universities (96%, 22 out of 23) and most indicated that they were either currently enrolled or highly likely to enroll in a science degree program (15 out of 23 or 65%).    Most indicated a long-term goal of obtaining a graduate degree in either a STEM (n=23) or medical (n=7) field (note: this question allowed for multiple responses).

 

Data Analysis 

Scaled survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean, median, standard deviation) and inferential statistics (non-paired, Wilcoxan T-tests) to compare pre-and post-survey responses, both globally and between the students enrolled in the U.S. and Romanian universities.  Comparisons between CHANCE outcomes and the national benchmarks were calculated using Welch’s two-sample T-test, which allows for calculations using aggregate data.  A Pearson correlation test was run on all scaled items in the survey, providing p- and R-values.  All statistical tests were calculated using (open source) R (dplyr, open xlsx, and flextable packages).  Only correlations with significant differences in both pre- and post-survey responses are reported.

 

Findings

Scientific Skills

The findings affirm that CHANCE Romania participants overall made significant gains in their perceived experience level with most (19 out of 24, or 79%) of the scientific activities associated with engagement in conventional CUREs and included in the survey subscale (Table I).

 

McLaughlin Cruz Table 1 PDF

In only one case (“work on problem sets”) did the mean response decrease, likely because problem sets were not incorporated into the CHANCE program.  All data used in the course was primary data collected directly from the field and all analysis was conducted on that data directly. While all participating students reported gains in experience across most program outcomes, these gains were comparatively higher for the University of Bucharest students on one item, “present results orally” (t-test p-value. .06; t-statistic 2.14, df 8.85, Wilcoxan p-value .06, W 48).

 

Beliefs about Science

In addition to the perceived experience scale, the CURE survey also includes a 22-item subscale focused on beliefs about science. The subscale presents statements about science, scientists, and philosophy of science with which students are invited to agree or disagree on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).  For the majority of these items, the CHANCE program responses to these questions remained stable from pre- to post-assessment. These include the statement “I can do well in science courses” which received consistently high agreement across the two surveys (pre-survey mean of 1.8, post-survey mean of 1.4), as well as the highest level of agreement among all questions in the subscale.

These findings (Table 2) suggest mild gains in attitudes related to embracing the ambiguity of scientific knowledge, but the strongest gains arose from the socialization of knowledge – a key attribute of the advocacy component of the program.

In comparing beliefs about science between students from the respective universities, four survey items (post-survey data only) indicated significant differences (see Table 3).

This finding indicates statistically significant differences in beliefs about science and science education between the two student groups even after their shared virtual CURE experience. Students enrolled in the U.S. University indicated higher levels of agreement (when compared to their Romanian-based classmates) with two items (“all theories are equally valid” and “only scientific experts are qualified to make judgments”); while students from the Romanian University reported higher levels of agreement (when compared with their U.S.-based classmates) with two different statements (“too much emphasis on figuring things out for yourself” and “lab experiments are used to confirm information”).

 

Scientific Activities and Beliefs about Science

A Pearson’s correlation was run on all scaled survey items, including both scientific activities and beliefs about science. There were six statistically significant correlations that suggest that engagement in CHANCE Romania may have changed the relationship(s) between how students perceived their experience with scientific activities and their fundamental beliefs about science (see Table 4).

As the data reflects, there were three pairings that became significantly less correlated from pre- to post- and three pairings that became significantly more strongly correlated from pre- to post-.  The only repeated paired item (“critique the work of other students”) led to stronger correlations from pre- to post-, which is suggestive of the role played by collaborative teams in the CHANCE curriculum.  Those pairings that weakened from pre- to post- do not indicate readily identifiable patterns, though there may be some slight suggestion of changing perspectives on how knowledge is (socially or otherwise) constructed relative to pedagogical approaches that are founded on constructivist learning principles.

 

CURE Survey Benchmarks 

For each scaled item on the CURE survey, we compared the post-test means of CHANCE program participants with the benchmark averages provided by the survey creators (Lopatto & Jaworski, 2018) with a global n of 17,810 using Welch’s two-sample T-test, which allows for calculations based on aggregate data.

 

Scientific Activities.  In the first subscale (activities), each survey item asks students to rate their level of experience with specified program components on a Likert scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest).  CHANCE Romania participants registered statistically significant gains in eight of the seventeen domains (47%) when compared to the CURE survey benchmarks (Table 5).

It should be noted that in three cases (“write a lab report”, “present results in written papers”, “work on problem sets”), CHANCE program averages were lower than the benchmark. In only one case (“work on problem sets”) was the lower outcome statistically significant.  None of these activities are prominently featured in the CHANCE program, partly because of language differences but also because the program focuses on the interdisciplinary aspects of sustainability, with an emphasis on public-facing advocacy and communicating effectively with both technical and non-technical audiences.

 

Benefits of participation. In addition to the scientific activities and beliefs about science scales, the CURE survey includes an additional scale focused on perceived benefits.  This scale is available only in the post-survey, meaning pre- and post-test comparisons are not possible, but it is possible to compare perceived benefits between CHANCE Romania participants and CURE survey benchmarks.  In this section of the survey, students are asked to rank their possible benefits of participation, on a scale ranging from “no gain” (1) to “very large gain (5) (Table 6).

 

McLaughlin Cruz Table 6 v2 PDF

 

As the table reflects, CHANCE program participants ranked their perceived benefits higher than the CURE benchmark averages in 12 out of 21 categories (57%).   These items include benefits associated with agentic learning (e.g., “learning to work independently”; “self-confidence”), soft skills (e.g., “communicating with people from other countries” (this latter phrasing is an adaption from the original survey) as well as skills associated with scientific research (e.g., “learning to analyze data and other information”).  CHANCE participants ranked lower than the benchmark in only one case (“learning laboratory techniques”), a consequence of the virtual modality in which the program was delivered (and the absence of available virtual laboratories appropriate for use in this setting).  From these results, it is evident that the CHANCE program participants perceived the majority of the benefits from their participation in virtual MUR-GC to be higher than the typical, non-virtual, non-binational, CURE.

 

Discussion, Limitations, and Implications

Scholars, practitioners, and educators alike have referred to environmental sustainability as a so-called wicked, problem (Lönngren & Van Poeck, 2021).  These kinds of super complex issues call for new modes of knowledge production, ways of navigating towards their solutions, and, by extension, new ways of preparing students to engage effectively and creatively with challenges that are increasingly global in both scale and scope (Cruz et al, 2023; Hanstedt, 2018).  Mentoring undergraduate research in a global context (MUR-GC) is an emerging pedagogical practice intended to develop students as wicked problem solvers, equipped with the skills, knowledge, and dispositions to tackle such complex issues, not in isolation, but as participants in open, collaborative, multi-disciplinary, and multi-national groups.

The findings presented here affirm the transformative nature of student participation in a specific MUR-GC programming as part of CHANCE Romania, including substantive changes in perceived skills/activities, beliefs about science, and self-reported cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes.  The benchmark comparisons made possible by the CURE survey further suggest that the practice of integrating two high impact practices (undergraduate research and global learning) has the potential to produce stronger (perceived) outcomes than a single high impact practice on its own, regardless of the instructional modality in which the undergraduate research experience is delivered.   Finally, the findings suggest that the perceived positive outcomes accrued varied slightly between the populations of students from the two participating institutions; but at similar levels, a conclusion that has implications for the equity gaps associated with the current state of high impact practices.

The results are indicative of a delicate balancing act between generalizability and equity. The identification and validation of the high impact practice model occurred in the United States—primarily through faculty and staff at Indiana University and Wabash College.  To date, the framework has made inroads into other parts of the world, but it remains most prevalent in North America.  The equity gaps associated with both high impact practices included in this study (undergraduate research and global education) have, therefore, primarily been identified within and relative to U.S. college student populations.  The present study suggests that the benefits of integrated, but culturally responsive high impact practices, such as MUR-GC, may also be relevant to college students from outside the United States, but more work will need to be done to strengthen the evidence-base that supports the adaptation and integration of these practices across different contexts.

The study further affirms that online or virtual MUR-GC can be similarly transformative when compared to face-to-face modalities; a conclusion which suggests that the virtual modality may increase access to these practices not only for other U.S. college students but also to others around the world.   In addition to gaps in participation within student populations, international education scholars have also noted gaps in study abroad participation by country or region, with the U.S. “exporting” more students (Haisley, 2021; Lopez-McGee, L., & Contreras, 2023; Zemach-Bensin, 2007) and leading more partnerships.  (Jon & Fry, 2021) than others.

The lowering of financial and logistical barriers afforded by the medium of virtual exchange not only enables students from other countries to participate more actively in projects led by U.S. institutions; it may also strengthen their capacity to lead their own projects and forge partnerships on their own terms. Regarding the latter, after three years of extensive programming, CHANCE Romania is no longer running at Penn State. As envisioned from the get-go, the University of Bucharest now orchestrates its own online and field-based components and partnerships with other universities within CIVIS – Europe’s Civic University Alliance. CHANCE works to build its programs with its valued partners in a sustainable fashion – leading faculty development workshops and field training during its programming such that its educational models and good work can be replicated and carried on for years to come. Similar programs catalyzed by CHANCE exist in numerous other countries (see below).

These insights should not be overstated. The findings of the study are based on a relatively small sample size (n=24), which limits their generalizability and further research with a larger and more diverse population of students will be required to further substantiate the suggestions made.   Expanding the scale of inquiry may prove challenging with MUR-GC projects.   Because of the logistics, preparation, cost, and diplomacy involved, these are often relatively small-scale projects or courses and, because they are grounded in contemporary issues with real-world data collection, such partnerships are not often repeated in fully commensurate ways.  To date, the CHANCE model has been adapted in seven different geo-political contexts (Australia, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Greece, Panama, Romania), and the outcomes measured, and assessment tools used have varied by both modality and context (McLaughlin et al., 2018; McLaughlin, 2021).

It should be noted, too, that although the consent documents for the study were translated into Romanian, the survey itself was not. Because the language of instruction was English, the research team, which consisted of both U.S. and Romanian representatives, initially believed this was not necessary. In hindsight, however, this may have contributed to issues with content validity. For example, certain terms used, such as “learning community” may be less familiar to students (and faculty) from outside of the U.S. higher education context.  Further, the CURE survey validation was based largely on U.S. college students, and the benchmarks were derived largely from prior participation by U.S. college students.  The findings of this study suggest that students from outside of the United States may have responses that are individually, but also collectively, distinct from those whose prior experience has largely been with U.S. educational systems.  As a college education continues to become more globally oriented for many institutions in many places, there is a growing imperative to develop assessment tools that are both culturally responsive and broadly relevant (Montenegro et al., 2017).

Finally, this study utilizes the CURE survey, which focuses on only one facet of the MUR-GC experience.  Our findings suggest that the integration of undergraduate research with global learning is likely to result in distinctive learning outcomes that are not necessarily captured by instruments focused on the constituent parts.  From one perspective, this state of affairs could suggest the need for integrated assessment instruments, i.e., a MUR-GC instrument in place of the CURE survey, but, on the other hand, it could also suggest that there may be a need to capture different kinds of evidence than what can be collected via a typical survey questionnaire.  Indeed, sustainability educators have increasingly advocated for assessment measures that move beyond capturing gains in knowledge and skills and towards inner transformation, including components such as belonging, identity, gratitude, and (intellectual and cultural) humility (Wamsler, 2020). It is perhaps not a coincidence that international agencies have identified similar outcomes as key competencies for the broader 21st-century workforce (Lavi et al, 2021; González-Pérez, L. I., & Ramírez-Montoya, 2022).

 

Conclusion 

The present survey-based study assesses the cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes associated with student participation in a virtual, bi-national, mentored undergraduate research experience focused on sustainability issues in the regions of southeastern Europe through which the Danube River flows, compared to those in a more conventional CURE. The perceived gains in ability, beliefs, and benefits enabled through this fully virtual iteration of the CHANCE model suggest that programs that integrate multiple high-impact practices (in this case, undergraduate research and global learning), have the potential to be transformative for participating students, regardless of their country of origin, and to contribute towards the growth of an increasingly diverse and globally oriented STEM workforce as well as to foster the next generation of global citizens actively engaged in the work of environmental sustainability.

 

References 

Acheson, K.   Mentored undergraduate research in global contexts: Integrated high-impact practices for student success.  American Association of Colleges and Universities.

Ahmad, Z., & Al-Thani, N. J. (2022). Undergraduate Research Experience Models: A systematic review of the literature from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of Educational Research, 114, 101996.

Auchincloss, L. C., Laursen, S. L., Branchaw, J. L., Eagan, K., Graham, M., Hanauer, D. I., Lawrie, G. & Dolan, E. L. (2014). Assessment of course-based undergraduate research experiences: a meeting report. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 29-40.

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.

Banks, J. E., & Gutiérrez, J. J. (2017). Undergraduate research in international settings: Synergies in stacked high-impact practices. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 37(3).

Bartsch, R. A. (2013). Designing SoTL studies—Part II: practicality. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(136), 35-48.

Beckman, M., & Hensel, N. (2009). Making explicit the implicit: Defining undergraduate research. CUR Quarterly, 29(4), 40-44.

Beelen, J., & Doscher, S. (2022). Situating COIL virtual exchange within concepts of internationalization. In Implementing Sustainable Change in Higher Education (pp. 32-54). Routledge.

Bender, C., Wright, D., & Lopatto, D. (2009). Students’ self-reported changes in intercultural knowledge and competence associated with three undergraduate science experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18(1), 307-322.

Bender, C., Yaffee, K., & Lopatto, D. (2017). Undergraduate research abroad: Different program designs serve different needs. Council on Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 37(3).

Broussard, C., Courtney, M. G., Dunn, S., Godde, K., & Preisler, V. (2021). Course-based undergraduate research experiences performance following the transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of College Science Teaching, 51(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2021.12290539

Brownell, S. E., Hekmat-Scafe, D. S., Singla, V., Chandler Seawell, P., Conklin Imam, J. F., Eddy, S. L., Stearns, T. & Cyert, M. S. (2015). A high-enrollment course-based undergraduate research experience improves student conceptions of scientific thinking and ability to interpret data. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(2), ar21.

Brownell, S. E., & Kloser, M. J. (2015). Toward a conceptual framework for measuring the effectiveness of course-based undergraduate research experiences in undergraduate biology. Studies in Higher Education, 40(3), 525-544.

Callahan, H. S., Wolyniak, M., Thompson, J. J., Rutter, M. T., Murren, C. J., & Bisner, A. (2023). The UNPAK project: Much more than a CURE. In Transforming Education for Sustainability: Discourses on Justice, Inclusion, and Authenticity (pp. 281-304). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Clipperton, J., Franco, J., Nordyke, S., Shaffer-O’Connell, M., & Wood, F. (2020). SOTL research design for assessment of interventions. APSA Preprints. 2020: This content is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. 10.33774/apsa-2020-gwfl0

Coleman, J. C., Hensel, N. H., & Campbell, W. E. (Eds.). (2023). Undergraduate research in online, virtual, and hybrid courses: Proactive practices for distant students. Taylor & Francis.

Contreras, E., López-McGee, L., Wick, D., & Willis, T. Y. (2020). Introduction: Special issue on diversity, equity, and inclusion in education abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 32(1), 1-11.

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), es1.

Cruz, L., Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Allocco, A. L., & Patch, K. (2022). Mentoring undergraduate research in global contexts: Insights from a national study. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 33(4), 21-36.

Cruz, L., Vandermaas‐Peeler, M., Hall, E. E., Allocco, A. L., Patch, K., Hamel, J., & McLaughlin, J. (2023). Mentoring undergraduate research in global contexts (MUR‐GC): An integrated model. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2023(175), 29-39.

Diehl, P. F., Lanham, C. C., & Voskuil, C. (2024). Beyond traditional study abroad. In J. Smith & A. Brown (H. A. Smith), The Oxford handbook of international studies pedagogy (pp. 257–275). Oxford University Press.

Ediger, T., Glebova, O., Waterson, M., & Nusnbaum, M. (2024). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of online teamwork activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of College Science Teaching, 1–10.

Faulconer, E., Terwilliger, B., Deters, R., & George, K. (2022). Is a framework of support enough? Undergraduate research for online STEM students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 51(3), 3–4.

Fechheimer, M., Webber, K., & Kleiber, P. B. (2011). How well do undergraduate research programs promote engagement and success of students?. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(2), 156-163.

Fey, S. B., Theus, M. E., & Ramirez, A. R. (2020). Course‐based undergraduate research experiences in a remote setting: Two case studies documenting implementation and student perceptions. Ecology and Evolution, 10(22), 12528-12541.

Finley, A. (2019). A Comprehensive Approach to Assessment of High-Impact Practices. Occasional Paper No. 41. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

Fisher, C., Hitchcock, L. I., Moak, S., Neyer, A., Moore, S., & Marsalis, S. (2023). Does faculty-led short-term study abroad improve students’ global competence? Findings from a systematic review and evidence gap map. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 35(1), 417-452.

Fischer, A. E., Immel, K. R., Wilkum, K., & Lee, L. (2021). A taxonomy for developing undergraduate research experiences as high-impact practices. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 21(1), 84-106.

Freeman, B., Marginson, S., & Tytler, R. (2019). An international view of STEM education. In B. Freeman, S. Marginson, & R. Tytler (Eds.), STEM education 2.0 (pp. 350–363). Brill.

Giedt, T., Gokcek, G., & Ghosh, J. (2015). International education in the 21st century: The importance of faculty in developing study abroad research opportunities. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 26(1), 167-186.

Glass, C. R., & Gesing, P. (Eds.). (2021). Critical Perspectives on Equity and Social Mobility in Study Abroad: Interrogating Issues of Unequal Access and Outcomes. Routledge.

González-Pérez, L. I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of education 4.0 in 21st-century skills frameworks: a systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1493.

Haisley, P. K., Grandorff, C., Agbonlahor, O., Mendez, S. L., & Hansen, M. (2021). Why study abroad: differences in motivation between US and international students. Journal of Global Education and Research, 5(2), 185-201.

Hamel, J. A., ter Hofstede, H. M., Gauthier, A., Lopatto, D., Merton, P., & Vandermast, D. (2021). Undergraduate research abroad: Shared themes in student learning from two models of course-embedded undergraduate research in field biology study abroad courses. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 5(1), 39-52.

Hanstedt, P. (2018). Creating wicked students: Designing courses for a complex world. Routledge.

Haupt, J. P., & Ogden, A. C. (2019). Education abroad as a high-impact practice: Linking research and practice to the educational continuum. In Education Abroad and the Undergraduate Experience (pp. 43-57). Routledge.

Helm, F., & Guth, S. (2022). Internationalization at home through virtual exchange. In The Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 265-286). Routledge.

Hensel, N. (ed.). (2018). Course-based undergraduate research: Educational equity and high-impact practice. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Hensel, N. H. (Ed.). (2023). Course-based undergraduate research: Educational equity and high-impact practice. Taylor & Francis.

Irby, S. M., Pelaez, N. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2019). Student perceptions of their gains in course-based undergraduate research abilities identified as the anticipated learning outcomes for a biochemistry CURE. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(1), 56-65.

Iskhakova, M., & Bradly, A. (2022). Short-term study abroad research: A systematic review 2000-2019. Journal of Management Education, 46(2), 383-427.

Jaskolski, M., & Udoh, I. (2022). Building cross-cultural sustainability discourses in higher education: A virtual exchange program between Egypt and the United States. The International Journal of Sustainability in Economic, Social and Cultural Context, 18(1), 43.

Jon, J. E., & Fry, G. W. (2021). Study abroad and engagement at the local and global levels: The stories behind the numbers. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(4), 407-424.

Kilgo, C.A., Ezell Sheets, J.K. & Pascarella, E.T. (2012). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: some longitudinal evidence. High Education 69, 509–525 (2015).

Kizilcec, R. F., Baker, R. B., Bruch, E., Cortes, K. E., Hamilton, L. T., Lang, D. N. Pardos, Z., Thompson, M.E. & Stevens, M. L. (2023). From pipelines to pathways in the study of academic progress. Science, 380(6643), 344-347.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 14(3), 28-29.

Kuh, G. D. (2016). Making learning meaningful: Engaging students in ways that matter to them. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2016(145), 49-56.

Lavi, R., Tal, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Perceptions of STEM alumni and students on developing 21st-century skills through methods of teaching and learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101002.

Lönngren, J., & Van Poeck, K. (2021). Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(6), 481-502.

Lopatto, D. (2010). Undergraduate research as a high-impact student experience. Peer Review, 12(2), 27.

Lopatto, D., & Jaworski, L. (2019). CURE benchmarks 2015–2018. Grinnell University. https://www.grinnell.edu/sites/default/files/docs/2019-07/CUREBenchmarkStatistics2015-2108.pdf

Lopatto, D., Silver Key, S. C., Van Stry, M., Siders, J., Leung, W., Sandlin, K. M., Rele, C.P., Genomics Education Partnership & Reed, L. K. (2023). Supporting the democratization of science during a pandemic: genomics Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) as an effective remote learning strategy. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 24(3), e00039-23.

Lopez-McGee, L., & Contreras, E. (2023). Underrepresentation in education abroad: A review of contemporary research and future opportunities. Promoting inclusion in education abroad, 17-41.

McLaughlin, J. S. (2010). Re-imagining new programs and pedagogical tools for the 21st century classroom: Blending research with teaching, Educause Review, 1, pp. 1-25.

McLaughlin, J. S. (2021). Teaching environmental sustainability while transforming study abroad, Sustainability, 13 (1), 1-13.

McLaughlin, J. S. and Fadigan, K. A. (2010). The CHANCE (Connecting Humans and Nature Through Conservation Experiences) Program: Transitioning from simple inquiry-based learning to professional science practice. In Robert E. Yager (Ed.), Exemplary Science Programs: Science for Resolving Societal Challenges (pp. 83-109).  NSTA Press.

McLaughlin, J. S., Patel, M. A., Johnson, D. K. and de la Rosa, C. L. (2018). The impact of a short-term study abroad program that offers a course-based undergraduate research experience and conservation activities, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 30 (3), 100-118.

McLaughlin, J. S., Patel, M. and Slee, J. B. (2020). A CURE using cell culture-based research enhances career-ready skills in undergraduates, Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research (SPUR), 4(2) 2, 49-52.

Messager, M. L., Comte, L., Couto, T. B., Koontz, E. D., Kuehne, L. M., Rogosch, J. S., Stiling, R. R. & Olden, J. D. (2022). Course‐based undergraduate research to advance environmental education, science, and resource management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 20(7), 431-440.

Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment. Occasional Paper# 29. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574461.pdf

O’Donnell, K., Botelho, J., Brown, J., González, G. M., & Head, W. (2015). Undergraduate research and its impact on student success for underrepresented students. New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(169), 27-38.

O’Dowd, R. (2021). What do students learn in virtual exchange? A qualitative content analysis of learning outcomes across multiple exchanges. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 101804.

Ohito, E. O., Lyiscott, J., Green, K. L., & Wilcox, S. E. (2021). This moment is the curriculum: equity, inclusion, and collectivist critical curriculum mapping for study abroad programs in the COVID-19 Era. Journal of Experiential Education, 44(1), 10-30.

Ruth, A., Brewis, A., & SturtzSreetharan, C. (2023). Effectiveness of social science research opportunities: A study of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). Teaching in Higher Education, 28(7), 1484-1502.

Salzman, H., & Benderly, B. L. (2019). STEM performance and supply: Assessing the evidence for education policy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(1), 9-25.

Schaab, K. (2023). Stacked High-Impact Practices (HIPs) and applied learning in the interdisciplinary classroom. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 41(1).

Shortlidge, E. E., & Brownell, S. E. (2016). How to assess your CURE: a practical guide for instructors of course-based undergraduate research experiences. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(3), 399-408.

Slotkin, M. H., Durie, C. J., & Eisenberg, J. R. (2012). The benefits of short‐term study abroad as a blended learning experience. Journal of International Education in Business, 5(2), 163-173.

Stevenson, H. J. (2014). Myths and motives behind STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education and the STEM-worker shortage narrative. Issues in Teacher Education, 23(1), 133-146.

Stewart, D. L., & Nicolazzo, Z. (2018). High impact of [whiteness] on trans* students in postsecondary education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(2), 132-145.

Sweeney, K. (2013). Inclusive excellence and underrepresentation of students of color in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 23(1), 1-21.

Vandermaas-Peeler, M., Allocco, A. L., & Fair, C. (2018). What to know before you go: Benefits and challenges of conducting undergraduate research in global contexts. PURM: Perspectives on Undergraduate Research & Mentoring, 7(1).

Wamsler, C. (2020). Education for sustainability: Fostering a more conscious society and transformation towards sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(1), 112-130.

Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54(6), 591-611.

Whatley, M., & Clayton, A. B. (2020). Study abroad for low-income students: The relationship between need-based grant aid and access to education abroad. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 49(2), 1.

Whatley, M., & Stich, A. E. (2021). From exclusive to inclusive: A mixed-methods investigation of study abroad participation and practices. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(1), 140-167.

Whatley, M., & Raby, R. L. (2020). Understanding inclusion and equity in community college education abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 32(1), 80-103.

Xue, Y., & Larson, R. C. (2015). STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes. Monthly Labor Review, 2015.

Zemach-Bersin, T. (2007). Global citizenship and study abroad: It’s all about US. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 1(2), 16-28.

• share:
• Recommend on Facebook
• Tweet this