ABSTRACT
Science communication is a powerful tool for disseminating scientific concepts to both STEM and non-STEM audiences. However, undergraduate students are rarely presented with opportunities to practice this skill with non-STEM audiences in their STEM courses. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) allow students to engage in authentic research projects in the context of a structured course. CURE courses have been shown to increase numerous psychosocial benchmarks, including science identity and science self-efficacy. We describe the integration of intergenerational partnerships, in which undergraduate students enrolled in CURE courses were paired with older adult community members. We studied these partnerships within three different CUREs. Undergraduate students discussed their CURE research project and formed relationships with older adults from the community during biweekly meetings. As the semester progressed, undergraduate students self-reported gains in their ability to communicate science information to older adults and to the broader community, their understanding of their CURE research projects, and their science identity. Additionally, both science identity and science self-efficacy increased, while science value orientation had a negligible decrease. Here, we provide evidence that incorporating older adult community members can be easily adapted to other STEM classrooms or laboratory courses, providing a meaningful platform for undergraduate students to practice science communication.
KEYWORDS: CURE, older adults, science identity, intergenerational learning
INTRODUCTION
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) have been pivotal in making STEM education more inclusive (1, 2). Indeed, CURE courses increase persistence (3), sense of belonging (4, 5), and science identity among students (6). The structural design of CURE labs provides an ideal venue for students to refine their communication skills (7). However, the research and science communication activities of CURE labs are generally confined to the academic and laboratory space in which the undergraduate students participate. Community-engaged learning is a pedagogical approach that integrates structured opportunities for students to engage with the community as part of their academic coursework. For example, in an inter-institutional, community-based participatory research CURE, students participated in one of three research projects centered on health disparities (incidence of hypertension in the immigrant and refugee community, impact of book clubs on Alzheimer’s health literacy, or health and language skills in the Congolese refugee community) in an underserved local community (8). Students in this course made gains in cultural competency, scientific content, and communication skills (8). Undergraduate students in an advanced physiology course with a focus on water quality for animal health developed and shared elementary age-appropriate science activities for an after-school program (9). Students in this course experienced self-reported gains in attitudes toward science, the scientific process, and career paths, all while becoming more aware of science literacy and growing in their confidence for community engagement (9). Public engagement can be achieved through a less targeted approach, such as public exhibitions of microbiology ePortfolios (10). While these outreach-focused CURE labs highlight the benefits of engaging in the local community, civic-engaged CURE courses build upon the framework of integrating structured public engagement into the research experience. In a health disparities CURE about the U.S.-Mexico border, students carried out structured civic-engaged outreach projects, which led to increased public health outreach skills, self-efficacy, and project ownership (11). Similar gains in self-efficacy and scientific civic knowledge were noted in students enrolled in a Power-of-Place CURE lab at a Hispanic-serving community college (12). Yet, despite gains in psychosocial factors, only a limited number of CURE courses have incorporated structured community outreach or civic engagement.
Another community-based alliance that can be incorporated into CURE settings is intergenerational learning. Intergenerational learning is defined as “transfer of knowledge, skills, competencies, norms, and values between generations” (13). Knowledge exchange occurs between different generations, with either family members or strangers during intergenerational learning (14). Researchers have documented many benefits for older adults engaged in intergenerational learning, such as intellectual engagement, enhanced self-esteem, increased generativity, greater self-confidence, and improved life satisfaction, along with reduced isolation and loneliness (6, 15–19). Universities are making strides in building intergenerational programs with older adult community members (20). However, there are no studies describing the incorporation of older adult community members into intensive research courses such as STEM CURE courses. We designed an intergenerational framework that brings students in CURE labs together with older adults from the community for recurring, informal scientific discussions that promote scientific exchange and mutual learning. Here, we outline best practices for incorporating older adult community members into CURE courses and demonstrate that undergraduate students experience gains in science identity, self-efficacy, and science communication.
Intended audience, learning time, and prerequisite student knowledge
The intended audience for this intervention is undergraduate students enrolled in CURE courses; however, this activity can be easily adapted for use in other STEM laboratory courses and classroom settings across various types of institutions, including research-focused universities, primary undergraduate universities, and community colleges. In our setting, a majority (82%) of students (those who completed both pre- and post-course surveys) are Biomedical Sciences majors with a concentration in microbiology, 12% are biology majors, and 6% are zoology majors (Table 1). Instructional time for the upper-level CURE labs consists of two weekly sessions: a 2-hour session on the first day and a 3-hour session on the second day (Tuesdays and Thursdays or Mondays and Wednesdays). Undergraduate students and older adult community members met every 2 weeks during the last 45 minutes of the second session (Thursdays or Wednesdays). The semester culminates in a public event where students present posters at venues open to the public, which include a restaurant/music venue and a brewery. Most students in these upper-level CURE laboratory courses were juniors or seniors (Table 1). These students have taken foundational microbiology courses such as general microbiology, immunology, parasitology, eukaryotic microbiology, medical bacteriology, and medical and molecular virology. Students are not provided with any specific training related to intergenerational learning or science communication in the CURE courses.
TABLE 1.
Student demographicsa
| Characteristic | Complete data | |
|---|---|---|
| N | % | |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 5 | 29.41% |
| Female | 12 | 70.59% |
| LGBTQIA+ identity | ||
| Yes | 4 | 23.53% |
| No | 12 | 70.59% |
| Prefer not to say | 1 | 5.88% |
| Race/ethnicity | ||
| American Indian | 1 | 5.88% |
| Hispanic/Latino | 2 | 11.76% |
| White | 14 | 82.35% |
| First generation status | ||
| Yes | 4 | 23.53% |
| No | 13 | 76.47% |
| Pell grant recipient | ||
| Yes | 4 | 23.53% |
| No | 13 | 76.47% |
| Experience working/volunteering in lab | ||
| Yes | 13 | 76.47% |
| No | 4 | 23.53% |
| College major | ||
| Biology | 2 | 11.76% |
| Biomedical Sciences/Microbiology | 14 | 82.35% |
| Zoology | 1 | 5.88% |
Information in this table was self-reported during a pre-course survey completed by students (N = 19) enrolled in the CURE Lab course during the Spring of 2024 (n = 8), Fall of 2024 (n = 4), and Spring of 2025 (n = 7). Two students from the Fall of 2024 did not complete the post-course survey and are excluded from the table.
Learning objectives
At the completion of this activity, students will be able to:
Recognize their role as nascent scientists and the value of their contributions to society
Summarize their scientific concepts, experiments, and data to non-STEM audiences, including older adults
Reflect on how engagement with older adult community members influences their perspectives on science communication and community relationships
PROCEDURE
Materials
To facilitate natural communication and connection, no prepared materials were provided for either students or older adult community members in this project. During the first iteration of this intervention, undergraduates drew images of their experiments on paper, shared images from the laboratory on their cell phones, and created PowerPoint presentations to facilitate discussion with their older adult community partner. Observations of communication strategies led the instructors to purchase whiteboards and erasable markers, one set per undergraduate student/older adult community member, to facilitate science communication.
Student instructions
Students are instructed to discuss the status of their research project with the older adult community partner. Students determine the mode of communication of their research project, including goals, results, and interpretations, as the project evolves over the course of the semester. Students complete the reflection journal in the learning management system (i.e., Canvas) after each meeting with the older adult community member. Reflection journals do not have a minimum or maximum word count and are graded for completion.
Faculty instructions
On the first day of the course, undergraduate students are told that intergenerational partnerships are part of the CURE lab curriculum. This partnership is presented as an opportunity to practice science communication every 2 weeks with older adults. In our setting, older adults ranged from having no microbiology/biology knowledge to a former microbiology department head. One-to-one pairings of undergraduate students and older adult community members in this study are done by birth month and then by birth date. Undergraduate students are reminded of an upcoming meeting with their older adult community member in the first lab session of the week and are reminded again the day of the meeting. Older adult community members (self-identified as older adults) are recruited by G.B. from several sources, including personal connections (e.g., neighbors), the local Rotary Club, and the Columbine Health Systems Center for Healthy Aging. The initial email communication to the older adult community members includes all meeting dates for the entire semester. At the first meeting, undergraduate students and older adult community members are reminded that the goal of the meetings is to discuss the science in which the undergraduate students are conducting. Dialog between the undergraduate students and older adult community members is encouraged to develop organically, initially centered on the undergraduate students’ research projects and then gradually expanding to include aspects of their personal lives and backgrounds. Conversations with undergraduate students and older adult community members generally continue past the meeting time, an indication of fruitful discourse.
The following recommendations facilitate this intervention:
All email communication to older adult community members should be on a new email thread.
Email reminders should be sent the day before the meeting, which includes the meeting time and room location.
It is helpful to post signs with directional arrows or to post a person at the entrance to help the older adult community members find the meeting room for the first few occurrences.
Do introductions at the first meeting between the undergraduate students and community members. The instructor should provide a clear overview of the purpose of the intergenerational project.
Providing refreshments (e.g., food) facilitates conversation.
Instructors give the undergraduate students and older adult community members a 5-minute warning when the meeting time is ending. This provides undergraduate students with a formal opportunity to exit the conversation, particularly if they have another course to attend.
If either a student or an older adult community member is absent, their partner is paired with another student/older adult community member.
Suggestions for determining student learning
After each meeting with their older adult community member, undergraduate students complete a reflection journal assignment, which includes three to four prompts related to their experience and discussion with the older adult community members. Responses (no minimum or maximum word count) to the prompts are submitted to the learning management system (Canvas). Focus group interviews with undergraduate students take place at the end of the semester after the final poster presentation.
Sample data
The Tripartite Integration Model of Social Influence (TIMSI), an instrument that measures science identity (seeing oneself as a scientist), science self-efficacy (belief in one’s own ability to do science), and value orientation (internalization of scientific community values) (21), is used to evaluate the benefits of including an intergenerational learning partnership in CURE courses. We have previously used the TIMSI survey in other CURE courses and have shown that students’ science identity and self-efficacy increase, while scientific value orientation does not change over the semester, likely due to students with high value orientation at baseline self-selecting into CURE courses (22). In the CUREs with the intergenerational learning element, undergraduate students completed the TIMSI survey at the beginning and end of the semester, and descriptive statistics were used to compare pre- and post-course responses. Science identity moderately increased from pre- (M = 18.59, SD = 2.83) to post-CURE course (M = 20.82, SD = 2.73; Cohen’s d = 0.78) (Fig. 1). Large increase in scientific self-efficacy was noted from pre- (M = 19.53, SD = 4.32) to post-CURE course (M = 23.71, SD = 2.47; Cohen’s d = 1.30) (Fig. 2). Similar to what we have previously observed in other CURE courses (22), scientific value orientation remained relatively unchanged from pre- (M = 19.06, SD = 1.03) to post-CURE course (M = 18.76, SD = 1.79), displaying only negligible decline (Cohen’s d = 0.18) (Fig. 3). The negligible increase in scientific value orientation has been noted in other CURE courses (23–25). One hypothesis to explain this negligible increase is that the pre-course levels of this metric are already high (25).
Fig 1.
Student science identity increases after completion of the CURE course. Science identity was measured at the beginning of the semester (baseline) and the end of the semester (follow-up). Descriptive statistics using Cohen’s d were used to compare the changes between baseline and follow-up.
Fig 2.
Student science efficacy increases after the CURE course. Science self-efficacy was measured at the beginning of the semester (baseline) and the end of the semester (follow-up). Descriptive statistics using Cohen’s d were used to compare the changes between baseline and follow-up.
Fig 3.
Student value orientation slightly decreases after participating in the CURE course. Value orientation was measured at the beginning of the semester (baseline) and the end of the semester (follow-up). Descriptive statistics using Cohen’s d were used to compare the changes between baseline and follow-up.
Safety issues
Undergraduate students engaged in laboratory research following BSL-2 guidelines. In two of the three CURE labs, students did gene editing of mammalian cells using CRISPR, while the third CURE lab focused on molecular characterization of pigmented bacteria from soil. Meetings with undergraduate students and older adult community members took place in a classroom. As relationships and experiments develop, undergraduate students invited their older adult community members into the laboratory to observe cells and experiments. In these instances, personal protective equipment, including gloves, laboratory coats, and safety glasses, was provided to the community members. Older adult community members did not participate in any laboratory procedures.
DISCUSSION
Field testing
This intergenerational learning intervention has been implemented in three upper-level microbiology CURE laboratory courses at Colorado State University during Spring 2024, Fall 2024, and Spring 2025 semesters. Over three semesters, eight, four, and seven undergraduate students were enrolled in these courses and paired with nine, four, and six older adult community members, respectively. One student in the first cohort did not consent to the research study. Two students from the Fall 2024 cohort did not complete the post-course survey (Table 1). Undergraduate students and older community members met six (Fall 2024) and seven times (Spring 2024, 2025) throughout the respective semesters. During the initial explanation of the research project, instructors (G.B. and C.M.) noted that undergraduate students did express some hesitancy and unease about partnering with older adults as part of a course. This hesitation was reaffirmed when undergraduate students reflected on their experience during the post-course interview.
Such hesitancy may be normal, considering undergraduate students in a service learning/community-engaged physiology course reported initial discomfort about being in a new situation (e.g., being off campus) and working with individuals who are different from themselves (e.g., elementary school-aged, African-American children) (9). Notably, these students also expressed growth in their confidence about collaborating across differences and in embracing their identity as scientists (9). The hesitancy and fear of students in the CUREs presented in this manuscript quickly dissipated after the undergraduate students and older adults concluded their first discussion.
Evidence of student learning
As part of the course, undergraduate students completed bi-weekly reflection journals focused on their interactions with adult community members. Inductive thematic analysis using Dedoose was employed to analyze student interviews and reflection journals, with the learning objectives of the course serving as a guide to the analysis. The three themes related to the learning objectives were “communicating science information to older adults,” “growing and reflecting on their own scientific understanding of the research project,” and “seeing themselves as scientists” (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Themes identified from student’ responses during post-course interviews
| Theme | Students' responses |
|---|---|
| Communicating science information to older adults | I thought it was really cool how interested they were. They were interested in hearing what I had to say and interested in my work. And really learning the techniques helps me go back to my family and my parents who don't understand this stuff and help them see why I'm so excited about it. |
| I think they definitely improved because I noticed when I was doing some research [for] poster presentations this semester, I was a lot more comfortable in explaining my projects to people who didn't have the background. And I think that definitely was directly correlated to my experience in this project. I knew how to like relate concepts to like more broader terms like analogies and stuff like that. So yeah, I think I definitely became more confident and more comfortable in my science communication. | |
| Why doesn't the public trust us? … That way it just kind of boils down to the idea you're going to distrust something that's foreign to you or that you don't understand … I also feel like it [science communication] needs to be a part of pretty much everyone's career … knowing how to articulate because even the conversations you have with your family members is so important, too. | |
| Growing and reflecting on own scientific understanding of research project | I think really it helped me really understand what we were doing and why. You do the experiments and you get the result and you're like, oh, that's cool. But actually talking to her helped me realize the steps and what we were doing and then the why of it and why it actually matters, which helped me a lot with throughout the semester. |
| [Community member] has very much impacted my learning in this class. She allows me to bounce ideas off of her in the respect of being able to understand them better. | |
| I feel that, by working with my community member, my overall retention of the course material has greatly improved. This is because I am expected to have a full understanding of the progression of our project and be able to explain it to another individual. This practice greatly helps my understanding of the content as well. | |
| Seeing themselves as scientists | And I think at the beginning, I was feeling very unsure of what I was doing and just not sure if I was in the right field, but by the end of the semester, I realized I really like lab work and research and I do think I’m a scientist. |
| Honestly, at the beginning of this experience I was dreading it. I was nervous it would be a waste of time and also pointless to communicate this research to a community member as I am not a full-fledged scientist yet. Throughout the semester, I got increasingly excited to see my partner and explain what I was doing and about to do. It made me feel proud of myself throughout the semester and did help me feel more like a scientist. | |
| I think I'm a scientist, but I think last night really solidified it for me and I talked about this with a bunch of the people that came up to my poster … so bringing it together in a poster and sharing it with other people really solidified it in me that wow, I did this. And I'm proud of what I did, and I can share it with people and they can see how hard I worked. |
The initial theme identified in student work and through their interviews related to their growing abilities and confidence in communicating scientific information with older adults. The undergraduate students’ learning included the development of strategies they could employ to help connect community members with the science they were learning in the course. One student remarked,
“I came prepared to our meetings with analogies, watching videos of people drawing out how CRISPR worked so that I could emulate that in my drawings to him. And I think watching other people communicate in different ways gave me the ideas to communicate in my best way.”
Strategies to communicate science to their older adult community members included using visual aids, determining what is vital for the community members to know, slowing down the pace of their communications, translating scientific concepts into lay terms, and making connections between the science and their everyday lives.
A second, but related theme involved how undergraduate students felt this experience impacted their own learning in the course. Undergraduate students pointed to the biweekly meetings with the community members as adding a beneficial layer to their own learning of the course material. For example, one undergraduate student noted,
“I feel that, by working with my community member, my overall retention of the course material has greatly improved. This is because I am expected to have a full understanding of the progression of our project and be able to explain it to another individual. This practice greatly helps my understanding of the content as well.”
To help community members understand the material, undergraduate students in this course had to explain their research in a way that was accessible and needed to be ready to answer questions when that access was not achieved. The undergraduate students in the course believed this positively impacted their own understanding of the content.
The final theme that emerged from our analysis was connected to the impact on undergraduate students’ science identity, or their willingness to identify themselves as a scientist. The act of meeting with and sharing scientific knowledge with their older adult community members, in addition to the other aspects of the course, impacted how some undergraduate students felt about their own identities in the field. One student noted,
“As the weeks go on, I am feeling more confident calling myself a scientist because of communicating with my partner. This has forced me to really understand what I’m doing and why I’m doing it. Most labs just tell you what to do but don’t really let you think about why you’re doing it.”
In the student responses, we observed a pattern of responses that linked communication of science to others and their growing willingness to identify as scientists. In another example, a student in the course remarked,
“I think I’m a scientist, but I think last night really solidified it for me, and I talked about this with a bunch of the people that came up to my poster … so bringing it together in a poster and sharing it with other people really solidified it in me that wow, I did this. And I'm proud of what I did, and I can share it with people, and they can see how hard I worked.”
Community member outcomes
In addition to collecting data with students, community members were asked to complete bi-weekly reflections and engage in a focus group at the end of the experience. In our initial analysis of community member data, two themes emerged. First, they shared how building intergenerational relationships is very powerful for them. As one community member reflected, “Engaging with university students about their lab experiences is thrilling because it allows me to witness their curiosity, innovation, and growth firsthand. Their enthusiasm and determination in overcoming challenges are energizing and inspiring.”
The second theme is connected to community members’ learning and interest in science. One community member reflected, “This experience has been very rewarding, not just as a mentor but as a lifelong learner. It reaffirms the importance of intergenerational exchange and reminds me how valuable curiosity and clarity are in science communication.” This excitement impacted how and what the community members learned and grew more interested in.
Possible modifications
Lowering barriers to engaging with older adult community members on campus
One of the biggest challenges to engaging older adult community members is parking. Two older adult community members withdrew from the study due to difficulty finding parking on campus and limited access to nearby parking spaces, which was especially problematic given their mobility issues. To alleviate some parking concerns, hourly parking passes to cover the meeting time and 30 minutes before and after were purchased and provided to the community members. Future researchers might also consider holding meetings in retirement homes or community centers, as well as hosting the meetings remotely with video conferencing software, to broaden the accessibility of this program to older adult community members.
More time for engagement
Interestingly, both undergraduate students and older adult community members express a strong desire for more time to engage in conversation with one another. Typically, 45 minutes is allotted for interactions; however, discussions are sometimes shortened if undergraduate students arrive late from the laboratory or have another class immediately after the CURE lab.
Additionally, older adult community members express an interest in forming a community with one another in focus group interviews and through personal email requests. In response to one such email request, a room was provided 30 minutes before the scheduled meeting time with the undergraduate students to serve as a dedicated meeting space for older adult community members to converse. An alternative approach for engaging with older adult community members could involve undergraduate students meeting with them at a location more convenient for the community members, such as an assisted living facility or a community senior center. We did not pursue this approach due to the many time constraints that undergraduate students have with academic and work obligations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology at Colorado State University provided start-up support for G.I.B. and C.M. Additional support to G.I.B. and C.M. was received from the The Institute for Learning and Teaching Faculty Research Fellowship at Colorado State University.
Contributor Information
Grace I. Borlee, Email: Grace.borlee@colostate.edu.
David R. Wessner, Davidson College, Davidson, North Carolina, USA
ETHICS APPROVAL
This study was reviewed and declared exempt by the Colorado State University Institutional Review Board (5296).
REFERENCES
- 1. Bangera G, Brownell SE. 2014. Course-based undergraduate research experiences can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE Life Sci Educ 13:602–606. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Estrada M, Hernandez PR, Schultz PW. 2018. A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers. CBE Life Sci Educ 17:ar9. doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Hanauer DI, Graham MJ, SEA-PHAGES, Betancur L, Bobrownicki A, Cresawn SG, Garlena RA, Jacobs-Sera D, Kaufmann N, Pope WH, Russell DA, Jacobs WR Jr, Sivanathan V, Asai DJ, Hatfull GF. 2017. An inclusive Research Education Community (iREC): Impact of the SEA-PHAGES program on research outcomes and student learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:13531–13536. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1718188115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Corwin LA, Graham MJ, Dolan EL. 2015. Modeling course-based undergraduate research experiences: an agenda for future research and evaluation. CBE Life Sci Educ 14:es1. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-10-0167 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Jordan TC, Burnett SH, Carson S, Caruso SM, Clase K, DeJong RJ, Dennehy JJ, Denver DR, Dunbar D, Elgin SCR, et al. 2014. A broadly implementable research course in phage discovery and genomics for first-year undergraduate students. mBio 5:e01051-13. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01051-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Alexander H, Waldron AM, Abell SK. 2011. Science and me: a student-driven science outreach program for lay adult audiences. J Coll Sci Teach 40:38–44. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Burmeister AR, Dickinson K, Graham MJ. 2021. Bridging trade-offs between traditional and course-based undergraduate research experiences by building student communication skills, identity, and interest. J Microbiol Biol Educ 22:e00156-21. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00156-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Malotky MKH, Mayes KM, Price KM, Smith G, Mann SN, Guinyard MW, Veale S, Ksor V, Siu L, Mlo H, Young AJ, Nsonwu MB, Morrison SD, Sudha S, Bernot KM. 2020. Fostering inclusion through an interinstitutional, community-engaged, course-based undergraduate research experience. J Microbiol Biol Educ 21:21.1.31. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1939 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Woodley SK, Freeman PE, Ricketts TD. 2019. Combining novel research and community-engaged learning in an undergraduate physiology laboratory course. Adv Physiol Educ 43:110–120. doi: 10.1152/advan.00177.2018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Smyth DS, Chen S, Sompanya G, Metz M, Conefrey T. 2022. How getting friendly with bacteria can promote student appreciation of microbial diversity and their civic scientific literacy. J Microbiol Biol Educ 23:e00055-22. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00055-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Olimpo J, Apodaca J, Hernandez-Gaytan A, Paat Y-F. 2019. Disease and the Environment: A Health Disparities CURE Incorporating Civic Engagement Education. Sci Educ Civ Engagem 11 [Google Scholar]
- 12. Dunbar-Wallis AK, Katcher J, Moore W, Corwin LA. 2024. Bee The CURE: increasing student science self-efficacy, science identity, and predictors of scientific civic engagement in a community college CURE. CBE Life Sci Educ 23:ar46. doi: 10.1187/cbe.24-01-0015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Hoff A. 2007. Patterns of intergenerational support in grandparent-grandchild and parent-child relationships in Germany. Ageing Soc 27:643–665. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X07006095 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Sánchez M, Kaplan M. 2014. Intergenerational learning in higher education: making the case for multigenerational classrooms. Educ Gerontol 40:473–485. doi: 10.1080/03601277.2013.844039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Gruenewald TL, Tanner EK, Fried LP, Carlson MC, Xue Q-L, Parisi JM, Rebok GW, Yarnell LM, Seeman TE. 2016. The Baltimore experience corps trial: enhancing generativity via intergenerational activity engagement in later life. GERONB 71:661–670. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbv005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Chippendale T, Boltz M. 2015. Living legends: effectiveness of a program to enhance sense of purpose and meaning in life among community-dwelling older adults. Am J Occup Ther 69:6904270010p1–11. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2015.014894 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Sakurai R, Yasunaga M, Murayama Y, Ohba H, Nonaka K, Suzuki H, Sakuma N, Nishi M, Uchida H, Shinkai S, Rebok GW, Fujiwara Y. 2016. Long-term effects of an intergenerational program on functional capacity in older adults: results from a seven-year follow-up of the REPRINTS study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 64:13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2015.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Murayama Y, Ohba H, Yasunaga M, Nonaka K, Takeuchi R, Nishi M, Sakuma N, Uchida H, Shinkai S, Fujiwara Y. 2015. The effect of intergenerational programs on the mental health of elderly adults. Aging Ment Health 19:306–314. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2014.933309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Gaggioli A, Morganti L, Bonfiglio S, Scaratti C, Cipresso P, Serino S, Riva G. 2014. Intergenerational group reminiscence: a potentially effective intervention to enhance elderly psychosocial wellbeing and to improve children’s perception of aging. Educ Gerontol 40:486–498. doi: 10.1080/03601277.2013.844042 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Talmage CA, Mark R, Slowey M, Knopf RC. 2016. Age Friendly Universities and engagement with older adults: moving from principles to practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education 35:537–554. doi: 10.1080/02601370.2016.1224040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Estrada M, Woodcock A, Hernandez PR, Schultz PW. 2011. Toward a model of social influence that explains minority student integration into the scientific community. J Educ Psychol 103:206–222. doi: 10.1037/a0020743 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Borlee GI, Kinkel T, Broeckling B, Borlee BR, Mayo C, Mehaffy C. 2024. Upper-level inter-disciplinary microbiology CUREs increase student’s scientific self-efficacy, scientific identity, and self-assessed skills. J Microbiol Biol Educ 25:e0014023. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00140-23 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Miller S, Hernandez PR, Du W, Aldana CC, Lee H, Maldonado N, Sandoval P, Vong J, Young G, Handelsman J, Broderick NA, Estrada M. 2025. Tiny Earth CURE demonstrates equitable benefits for U.S. College science students. CBE Life Sci Educ 24:ar30. doi: 10.1187/cbe.23-06-0117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Newell MJ, Ulrich PN. 2022. Gains in scientific identity, scientific self-efficacy, and career intent distinguish upper-level CUREs from traditional experiences in the classroom. J Microbiol Biol Educ 23:e00051-22. doi: 10.1128/jmbe.00051-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Shuster MI PhD, Curtiss J, Wright TF, Champion C, Sharifi M, Bosland J. 2019. Implementing and Evaluating a Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) at a hispanic-serving institution. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 13. doi: 10.7771/1541-5015.1806 [DOI] [Google Scholar]