Ivana Hernandez
Stephanie M. Willerth
Binata Joddar- 1Inspired Materials & Stem-Cell Based Tissue Engineering Laboratory (IMSTEL), Biomedical Engineering Program at Department of Metallurgical, Materials, and Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at El Paso, University Avenue, El Paso, TX, United States
- 2Biomedical Engineering, Director of the Nanotherapeutics Cluster, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Division of Medical Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
In 2018, the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) secured the International Research Experience for Students (IRES) grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Collaborating with the University of Victoria (UVIC) in Canada, the initiative aimed to equip UG STEM students with international research exposure. The focus of the scientific research was centered on utilizing 3D bioprinting to co-print human stem cell derived products with biomedical scaffolds. The IRES: UTEP-UVIC program's other goals included creating opportunities for the US Southwest Border region residents, particularly marginalized groups, to excel and integrate as STEM professionals in a domestic and international research setting. Over the three-year grant period, the program trained up to 15 undergraduates, implemented graduate-undergraduate working groups, prepared students for post-baccalaureate education, strengthened research collaborations, and fostered a globally engaged STEM workforce. Each cohort participated in hands-on lab training, including cell culture and 3D bioprinting, followed by mentor-guided research execution in the US followed by Canada. This study reports on the project activities and its outcomes in the form of insights generated from the project as well as the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the project in its various aspects. The program positively influenced academic and professional outcomes for all participants, with a total of seven research-based publications and six conference presentations resulting from collective research experiences. Overall, the program successfully contributed to the development and success of STEM students, particularly those from underrepresented groups. In summary, we learned that UG research and training experiences are crucial for holistic student development, preparing them for both advanced academic pursuits and diverse career paths. These experiences contribute to a deeper understanding of the subject matter, the development of essential skills, and the cultivation of a lifelong appreciation for research and learning.
1 Introduction
Career development in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) continues to be molded by a dynamic blend of psychological, social and institutional elements as well as inclusive educational approaches, mentoring and practical learning. Recent studies underline the role of confidence, outcome expectancies, and meaningful STEM experiences in influencing students' career objectives and keeping their commitment to STEM pathways (Zhou and Shirazi, 2025; Han et al., 2021). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that fostering a strong feeling of community and academic enthusiasm greatly increases retention and completion rates in challenging STEM fields (Xu, 2013). All these elements are particularly important for students from underrepresented backgrounds, including women, ethnic minorities, and low-income groups, in order to overcome systematic barriers and maintain long-term participation in STEM professions (Singer et al., 2020). These results highlight how crucial mentorship, inclusive learning settings, and integrated instructional methodologies are to developing a diverse and resilient STEM workforce.
Marginalized STEM students in the U.S. face compounded barriers to pursuing careers, intensified by gaps in academic achievement and limited job opportunities [(National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), 2023)]. These barriers include financial hardship, lack of culturally relevant role models, and difficulty reconciling personal and academic cultural norms. Racism, stereotypes, internal doubt, and social exclusion (Pierszalowski et al., 2021) further erode their sense of identity, belonging, and ability to thrive. These barriers are reflected in numbers as the retention and graduation rates showing disparities: despite making up over 33% of the U.S. population, African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hispanic/Latino individuals only hold 22% of STEM bachelor's degrees and 9% of doctoral degrees. Additionally, underrepresented minorities have significantly lower six-year graduation rates (33.8%) than their White counterparts (53.1%) (Markle et al., 2022). Addressing these gaps requires intentional strategies that not only increase access but also foster belonging, representation, and on-going support throughout STEM careers. Equally important are opportunities that promote professional skill development, mentorship, and career exploration, equipping students with the tools, experiences, and networks needed to thrive in STEM fields long-term.
The National Science Foundation's International Research Experiences for Students (IRES) program aims to offer U.S. students high-quality educational experiences through research collaboration with international partners (National Science Foundation, 2023). In 2018, NSF awarded an IRES grant to The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), El Paso, Texas, in collaboration with the University of Victoria (UVIC), Victoria, BC, Canada and was titled IRES Track I: US-Canada Collaborative Research on Biomaterials for stem cell culture and neural differentiation (Joddar, 2018). This NSF project focused on creating a hybrid local and international immersive summer research experience for undergraduate students enrolled at UTEP, which is one of the largest and most prolific Hispanic-serving institutions in the country, with a student body that is 88% (2023) Hispanic (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). The overarching goal of this NSF project was to recruit and train undergraduate (UG) STEM students in the College of Engineering and College of Sciences at UTEP and provide them with international research experiences in the fields of neuroscience, biomaterials, tissue engineering, and 3D bioprinting for regenerative medicine applications. Their training consisted of an 8–10 week intensive summer research experience, including training initiated at the PI's lab (Alonzo et al., 2020, 2022; Esparza et al., 2023; Hernandez et al., 2023; Joddar et al., 2013, 2014; Joddar and Ito, 2011, 2013; Joddar et al., 2011, 2023, 2022, 2015; Joddar and Ramamurthi, 2006a,b; Padilla et al., 2022; Ramirez et al., 2023; El Khoury et al., 2021; Tasnim et al., 2017, 2018; Zhou et al., 2015) at UTEP while also learning to conduct independent research for 6–8 weeks followed by international research exposures at UVIC, for another 2–3 weeks. Specifically, the project introduced newly recruited UG's to the field of 3D bioprinting for culturing stem-cell derived cardiomyocytes and neuronal cells within biodegradable scaffolds with defined shapes and architecture. The overarching educational and training goals of this program were focused on fostering skill development, instilling confidence, and igniting enthusiasm toward Biomaterials Research for underrepresented minority students in STEM. We hypothesized that an Accelerated Undergraduate Research Training and International Research exposure-based hybrid approach to achieve all of the above-proposed endpoints would enable us to achieve our goals as well as help advance in piloting the training approach for future international collaborative efforts. This manuscript summarizes collectively the 3-year project outcomes, shares the results of the student survey data, and highlights the key project design decisions that were key toward generating positive learning outcomes. This program aims to help further enable undergraduate researchers to build confidence and gain experience-forging relationships with faculty and peers. This paper compares the program's implementation before, during and after the pandemic and discusses lessons learned.
2 Methods
The programmatic goals of the IRES Track I: US-Canada Collaborative Research on Biomaterials for Stem Cell Culture and Neural Differentiation program (hereafter referred to as the IRES: UTEP-UVIC program) were the following:
a) Achieve a better understanding of the role of growth factors, micro-environmental niches, and cues released from biomaterial scaffolds in the regulation of adult human pluripotent stem cell (PSC) differentiation into neural phenotypes.
b) Create opportunities for residents of the Southwest Border region, including underrepresented minority individuals (Hispanics and women), that will empower them to become globally engaged STEM professionals capable of performing in an international research environment.
c) Help UTEP STEM students develop and refine research skills that are vital in STEM professions across the globe.
To achieve these goals over the course of a three-year grant period, our main objectives were to: (1) train and mentor up to 15 diverse undergraduate students from UTEP in a collaborative and international setting; (2) adopt and establish graduate-undergraduate mentoring dynamics for this project; (3) encourage and prepare undergraduate students from UTEP for enrollment in graduate and other post-baccalaureate programs in related fields; (4) foster existing collaborations and develop new research collaborations between the PI's at UTEP and other tissue engineering scientist-groups in Canada; and (5) develop a diverse cohort of globally engaged scientists/engineers that seek career opportunities and collaborators throughout the world.
The impact of these efforts was evaluated through a multi-dimensional assessment strategy, including pre- and post-surveys, focus groups, and academic data. Key areas of measurement included: Perseverance and goal commitment, using the GRIT Scale, which aligned with Goal (c) and Objective 3, capturing the non-cognitive traits needed to persist through graduate-level STEM training. Multicultural group dynamics was measured through the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale (MGUDS), which supported Goal (b), Objective 1, 4 and 5 by measuring openness to cultural diversity and students' comfort in working across academic and cultural differences, skills essential for global research collaboration. Students' research self-efficacy, assessed via the Research Self-Efficacy Scale, along with measures of their degree of confidence, directly addressed Goal (c) and Objectives 1 and 3 by assessing students' confidence in performing essential research tasks. Mentorship effectiveness was assessed using the Mentor Skills Assessment which reflected Goal (b), Objective 1 and 2, which is central to the efficacy of a mentor-oriented program, student development, and retention. STEM career intentions, which gauged students' motivation to pursue biomedical research careers, along with academic performance and retention, tracked through GPA, credit hour completion, and continued enrollment in STEM majors, and the total number of publications and conference presentations, addressed Goals (a), (b), and (c) and Objectives 3, 4, and 5. Additionally, focus groups reinforced each of the quantitative measures by providing qualitative insights into students' expectations and experiences. Conducted pre- and post-program, these discussions explored research, professional, and personal development using questions, offering a richer context to understand the program's impact. The program's structure and assessment process are summarized in Figure 1, which outlines the key phases from recruitment through post-program evaluation. Together, these goals, objectives and assessments provided a robust framework for advancing student development and program impact within a cross-cultural, international research context.
Figure 1. Program timeline by phases and assessment framework.
This study was approved via UTEP's IRB on October 13, 2021, for the Study Number: 1489976-3. The data shared are in accordance with the ethical consent provided by participants on the use of confidential/identifiable human data. Such data does not compromise the anonymity of the participants or breach local data protection laws. Data source: UTEP's Research Evaluation and Assessment Services (REAS).
2.1 Data collection tools
The pre-assessment survey utilized the GRIT scale, developed by Duckworth and Peterson to evaluate participants' perseverance and passion for achieving long-term goals. The Grit Scale is a reliable and valid tool, specifically tailored for predicting students' academic perseverance, school satisfaction, and overall life satisfaction (Duckworth et al., 2021). Individuals with high grit scores demonstrate determination and maintain a focused interest in their long-term goals, even in the face of challenges and setbacks. The GRIT scale consists of 12 self-reported items, which participants rate on a 5-point Likert-like scale ranging from ‘Very much like me' (1) to ‘Not like me at all' (5). By averaging the scores of all 12 items for each student, GRIT scores were obtained. Higher scores on the GRIT scale, closer to 5, indicate a higher level of grit, characterized as being ‘Extremely Gritty'. Conversely, lower scores closer to 1 indicate a lower level of grit, characterized as being ‘Not at all gritty'. Other tools used in the evaluation included the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale (MGUDS) (Miville et al., 2004), which measured students' cultural awareness and openness to diversity. The MGUDS consisted of 15 items rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree' (1) to ‘Strongly Agree' (7). Higher average scores across these items indicate greater comfort with and appreciation for cultural differences. For the Comfort with Differences subscale, items were reverse-coded, with ‘Strongly Disagree' scored as 7 and ‘Strongly Agree' as 1. Lower scores on this subscale reflect a stronger ease in diverse environments. Additionally, research self-efficacy was assessed using a modified version of the Research Self-Efficacy Scale (Bieschke et al., 1996), which included Yes/No questions and a follow-up rating of students' confidence in performing research tasks on a scale from ‘No Confidence' (0) to ‘Complete Confidence' (100). Higher scores reflected greater self-assurance in conducting research-related activities, indicating readiness for more advanced scientific work. The post-survey included the same scales, except the Grit Scale, which was exchanged for the Mentor Skills Assessment, based on and adapted from the Mentor Role Instrument (MRI) (Anekstein and Vereen, 2018), a measure of students' perceptions of their primary mentor's skills. The assessment emphasized the quality of mentoring relationships during the research experience. While the MRI was originally designed for use in different educational and professional contexts, its core domains, such as communication, guidance, and professional development, are highly relevant to undergraduate research mentoring. The adapted version retained these essential elements while simplifying language and response options to better fit the current study population. This assessment utilized a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘My mentor did not do this' (1) to ‘My mentor did this frequently and was effective' (4). Higher average scores indicated stronger mentorship support, particularly in areas such as communication, feedback, and professional guidance. Although validated instruments like the GRIT Scale and MGUDS were used, the traditional pre/post assessment approach in this study has limitations. Pre-assessments may not accurately reflect students' baseline self-perceptions due to limited awareness of skills to be developed, a phenomenon known as response-shift bias (Miller et al., 2023). To overcome this, many researchers use a retrospective pre/post design, where students assess changes after the learning experience, reducing growth underestimation (Hall and Starzec, 2024). While this study did not adopt that method, acknowledging this limitation is important, as it may influence the interpretation of reported gains and inform future research design. We also analyzed student cohorts' academic data to assess their progress toward graduation and overall academic performance. This analysis included a comparison between the number of credit hours attempted and the number of credit hours successfully earned, providing insight into course completion rates and academic persistence. Additionally, we examined both term and cumulative grade point averages (GPAs) to assess students' short-term academic achievement and long-term academic standing over time. These academic indicators helped us identify patterns of academic success, potential barriers to degree completion, and differences in academic outcomes across students.
Pre- and post-research experience focus groups were used to assess the impact the IRES: UTEP-UVIC program had on all student cohorts. The focus groups aimed to gain a deeper understanding of participants' program expectations in the pre-focus group and program experiences as they relate to the participants' research, professional, and personal development in the post-focus group. The focus groups included questions from the Undergraduate Research Student Self-Assessment (URSSA) (Padilla et al., 2022) and questions related to the student's experience in working in interdisciplinary teams as a basis for discussion. Students in Cohorts 1 and 2 were asked specific questions about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic to serve as a foundation for discussion. The pre-and post-focus groups were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Beyond survey data, the pre- and post-focus groups were expected to provide a deeper understanding of the students' experience in the IRES: UTEP-UVIC programs and the program's impact on the development of student's academic, professional, and personal skills. Moreover, it is important to highlight that while no specific data was gathered for four non-traveling students [three from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), and one UTEP] who were mentored alongside these UTEP-UVIC cohorts, they actively participated and played a vital role in the research endeavors of the program, contributing significantly to both scientific advancements and educational objectives.
3 Findings
3.1 Recruitment efforts
Recruitment efforts for the IRES: UTEP-UVIC program varied annually based on the availability of a program coordinator from the UTEP outreach program who could support the recruitment efforts of this program. For the recruitment, flyers and emails containing the program description and opportunity, eligibility criteria, and information on how to apply were initially sent to 4,000 undergraduate students at UTEP via Listservs. Furthermore, flyers were shared with Director of the Campus Office of Undergraduate Research Initiatives (COURI), the Undergraduate BUILDing Scholars program and the UTEP Honors Program. Flyers were also distributed via the College of Science and Engineering Deans' Offices as well as posted on computer screens in relevant departments and around Classroom Building floors in the university.
For the first and second year of the program, additional recruitment efforts consisted of email announcements and program information sessions with classroom students from the College of Engineering and the College of Science majors. The year-one recruitment efforts resulted in a total of 18 UTEP STEM student applications. Of all applicants 44% were female, the remaining were male, and 98% applicants identified as Hispanic. The applicants were primarily juniors (75%), followed by seniors (25%). The majors represented within the applicants included Biology, Cellular and Molecular Biochemistry, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Microbiology, and Neuroscience. The project started in Fall of 2019 and the first cohort was recruited for Summer of 2020. For the recruitment of the second cohort, our efforts were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and no new students were recruited to the program. Instead, the existing students who could not travel in year-1 were given the invitation to continue with the program in the consecutive summer. Three students accepted this invitation and were retained in the second year. But the students could not travel to UVIC in Canada for the first and second year of the program, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the third year, post pandemic, recruitment efforts consisted of email announcements and program information sessions with students from the College of Engineering and the College of Science majors. This resulted in a total of 12 UTEP STEM student applications. The majority (67%) of applicants were female, and all applicants identified as Hispanic. The applicants were primarily juniors (58.3%), followed by seniors (33.3%) and sophomores (8.3%). The majors represented within the applicants included Biology, Cellular & Molecular Biochemistry, Forensic Biology, Mechanical Engineering, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Microbiology, and Neuroscience.
In the fourth year of the program, recruitment was conducted later in spring 2023, in the absence of an outreach coordinator. The PIs circulated program information via email to faculty in the College of Engineering and Science, resulting in a total of 7 UTEP STEM student applications only. All applicants self-identified as Hispanic, with the majority (85.7%) being female. Among the applicants, 71.4% were seniors, 14.3% were juniors, and 14.3% were sophomores. The majors represented included Biology, Mechanical Engineering, Cellular & Molecular Biochemistry and Neuroscience.
A relatively high GPA (>3.5) was one of the considerations for acceptance into the NSF IRES program, as it reflects the applicant's academic performance and ability to succeed in a rigorous research environment. However, the application process was holistic and took multiple factors into account. The application process typically involved submitting a formal application that included academic transcripts, letters of recommendation and a personal statement as well. In the personal statement, applicants were asked to discuss their research interests, career goals, and reasons for wanting to participate in the program. The selection committee considered not only GPA but also the applicant's research experience, commitment to the field, and potential to contribute to and benefit from the program during the final stage of section accompanied by an in person or virtual interview by the PI's. Acceptance was determined by a combination of these factors, with an emphasis on selecting students who demonstrated strong academic abilities, a passion for research, and a clear alignment with the program's goals. The aim was to select well-rounded individuals who would thrive in international research setting and contribute positively to the collaborative research efforts.
3.2 Participant's progress: academic and performance outcomes
All cohorts demonstrated academic progress toward graduation by either continuing to engage in STEM coursework or graduating. In Cohort 4 (2022-2023), students attempted an average of 12.00 credit hours and earned 11.25 credit hours in spring 2023, with an average spring term GPA of 3.72 and a cumulative GPA of 3.75. Cohort 3 (2021–2022) had participants who attempted and earned an average of 13.60 credit hours during spring 2022, with an average spring term GPA of 3.68 and a cumulative GPA of 3.73. Cohorts 3 and 4 had a 100% college retention rate as all participants enrolled in STEM coursework in Fall 2022. For Cohort 1-2, since the program's inception, four undergraduates participated, and all completed their studies as of Fall 2021, demonstrating a 100% college retention and graduation rates. Cohort 1-2 (2020-2021) consisted of undergraduate program participants who attempted and earned an average of 15 credit hours in fall 2020, achieving an average cumulative GPA of 3.89. In spring 2021, undergraduate participants attempted and earned an average of 15.50 credit hours, with a 3.90 average cumulative GPA.
3.3 Pre- and post-surveys
3.3.1 Perseverance and goal commitment
Outcomes from the GRIT scores validate the effectiveness of our training approach and methods utilized in the project. The GRIT scores for the 13 students ranged from a low of 3.33 to a high of 4.75. The mean score of approximately 3.99 indicates that, on average, the individuals in the data set have a moderately high level of grit, as GRIT scores typically range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more perseverance and passion for long-term goals. The standard deviation of approximately 0.41 suggests that the GRIT scores are relatively consistent among the individuals, with most scores falling close to the mean. A lower standard deviation indicates that there is less variability in the grit levels among the participants, meaning that most individuals in this group exhibit similar levels of grit. These findings suggest that the program may have contributed to strengthening students' perseverance, as reflected by their consistently high GRIT scores. Supplementary Table 1 summarizes these results.
3.3.2 Multicultural group dynamics
Figure 2 presents the Cultural Awareness Composite Pre- and Post-Mean Scores, providing insights into the changes in cultural awareness among a total of 13 students. Please also refer to Supplementary Table 2.
Figure 2. (MGUDS)-cultural diversity awareness, openness, and comfort composite pre- and post-mean scores (N = 13 from all 4 cohorts). *Scale was reversed coded to strongly disagree = 7 to strongly agree = 1.
For Cohort 4, during the pre-and post-summer research experience, students consistently reported high levels of comfort with cultural diversity, with a mean score of 6.70 for both pre-assessment and post-assessment. Additionally, there was a slight increase in students' cultural diversity awareness from the pre-assessment (M = 6.30) to the post-assessment (M = 6.35). However, there was a slight decrease in students' levels of openness to cultural diversity from the pre-assessment (M = 6.30) to the post-assessment (M = 6.25). During the pre-and post-summer research experience, student participants in Cohort 3 consistently exhibited a high level of comfort with cultural diversity, as reflected in the mean scores of 5.52 for the pre-assessment and 5.68 for the post-assessment. However, there was a slight decrease in participants' levels of cultural diversity awareness from the pre-research experience stage (M = 5.68) to the post-research experience stage (M = 5.60). Similarly, student participants demonstrated a slight decrease in their levels of openness to cultural diversity following the summer research experience, with a mean score of 5.96 in the post-assessment compared to 6.08 in the pre-assessment.
For the Diversity of Contact item, participants had a Pre-Mean score of 5.90 with a Pre-SD of 0.89, indicating a moderate level of diversity of contact awareness before the international experience. After the program, the post-mean score increased slightly to 5.93 with a post-SD of 0.78. In terms of Relativistic Appreciation, participants initially had a high Pre-Mean score of 6.23 with a Pre-SD of 0.55, suggesting a strong understanding and appreciation of different perspectives. However, after the exposure, the post-mean score decreased slightly to 6.00 with a post-SD of 0.70. The Mean Difference of −0.23 indicates a slight decrease in relativistic appreciation. Regarding Comfort with Differences, participants had a Pre-Mean score of 5.97 with a Pre-SD of 0.73, indicating a moderate level of comfort with differences before the program. After completing the program, the post-mean score decreased to 5.69 with a higher post-SD of 1.30. Therefore, a decrease in score indicates an increase in comfort with differences.
While most measures remained stable or showed only marginal changes, the program appears to have maintained or slightly improved students' comfort with and exposure to cultural diversity, suggesting a modest but positive impact on certain aspects of Multicultural Group Dynamics.
3.3.3 Students' research self-efficacy
Together, pre and post focus groups allowed our team to compare participants' perspectives in a qualitative manner before and after the program, providing valuable feedback on its success and areas that may require adjustment. During the research experience, participants in both Cohort 4 and 3 demonstrated an enhancement in their research self-efficacy. In the pre-assessment survey for Cohort 4, all three students indicated their ability to conduct all sixteen behaviors of the Research Self-efficacy scale. However, in the post-assessment survey, the number of students increased to four, and they reported being able to perform six out of the sixteen behaviors. The majority of the behavior tasks had an improvement from pre- to post-assessment, indicating that the students' overall degree of confidence increased after the IRES experience. Figure 3 presents the research task performance of all 13 participants, expressed as percentages. Please also refer to Supplementary Table 3.
Figure 3. Research self-efficacy. Participant's ability to perform research tasks (N = 13 from all 4 cohorts represented as percentage responses).
Notably, all 13 participants reported post-assessment confidence in key foundational research tasks such as identifying areas of needed research, developing logical rationales, synthesizing literature, discussing ideas with peers, and selecting appropriate research designs, each showing either full or near-full improvement from pre-assessment levels. The most significant gains were seen in more advanced or collaborative tasks, such as consulting senior researchers (5–11), participating in collaborative idea generation (from 4 to 11), and utilizing criticism from reviews (from 4 to 11). Additionally, tasks involving academic writing and critical evaluation, such as editing writing (from 4 to 9) and evaluating journal articles (from 5 to 9), also showed marked improvement. These changes suggest enhanced research self-efficacy in both individual and collaborative domains, reflecting the program's effectiveness in developing a broader range of research competencies.
Cohort 4 students showed a slight increase in their average confidence score from 75.51 (out of 100) in the pre-assessment to 77.33 in the post-assessment. Furthermore, participants reported higher confidence scores in the post-assessment compared to the pre-assessment for eleven out of the sixteen tasks. This suggests that the research experience had a positive impact on the participants' research self-efficacy, as reflected in their increased confidence levels across various research-related tasks. On the other hand, participants in Cohort 3 reported an improved ability to perform eight out of the sixteen research tasks in the post-survey. Notably, there was a significant 14.60-point increase in the level of confidence reported by participants in developing a logical rationale for research ideas. In the pre-assessment, the average strength score was 52 out of a possible 100, whereas in the post-assessment, the average score rose to 66.60. Additionally, participants scored higher confidence levels in the post-assessment compared to the pre-assessment for eight out of the sixteen tasks. This indicates that the research experience had a positive impact on participants' confidence levels, particularly in their ability to develop a logical rationale for research ideas. However, for selected students decreases in confidence in research ability may be due to students' exposure to technical spaces that they were previously unaware of before this experience. For example, the ‘Develop a logical rationale for your particular research ideas' resulted in the participants' confidence in this task increased significantly from a Pre-Mean score of 70.31 to a post-mean score of 77.46. The Mean Difference of 7.15 suggests a substantial improvement in confidence. In another task, ‘Decide when to quit generating ideas based on your literature review', participants' confidence in this task increased significantly from a Pre-Mean score of 60.38 to a post-mean score of 70.62. The Mean Difference of 10.23 suggests a substantial increase in confidence. On the contrary, 5 out of the 16 tasks showed a decrease in confidence among participants, particularly those involving collaboration with peers. For example, the task of ‘Presenting research ideas with peers' saw a decrease in confidence from a Pre-Mean score of 87.15 to a post-mean score of 79.46, with a mean difference of −7.69, indicating a significant decline in confidence. Similarly, in the task of ‘Discussing research ideas with peers', the students' mean scores dropped from pre-90.77 to post-83.23, with a mean difference of −7.54, indicating a decrease in confidence. Cohort 4 students indicated that their primary mentor effectively engaged in 13 out of the 26 skills assessed. The mentoring skill that received the highest rating from students was “My mentor showed interest in my research project,” with an average rating of 4.00 and a standard deviation of 0.00. On the other hand, the skill that received the lowest rating was “My mentor helped me decide on a career path,” with an average rating of 1.50 and a standard deviation of 1.00. In cohort 3, participants expressed overall satisfaction with the mentorship they received during the program. Primary mentors actively and effectively engaged in various activities, including offering constructive feedback, acting as positive role models, fostering confidence skills, displaying enthusiasm about the research project, and developing mentees' research skills. Figure 4 illustrates the students' degree of confidence with respective standard deviation across various research tasks, comparing pre-assessment and post-assessment results. Please also refer to Supplementary Table 4.
Figure 4. Student's mean degree of confidence (with standard deviations) pre & post (N = 13 from all 4 cohorts).
Overall, the program positively impacted students' research self-efficacy. Most participants showed increased confidence in key research tasks and advanced skills. While some confidence in peer collaboration decreased, overall improvements and positive mentorship feedback demonstrate the program effectively strengthened their research abilities and belief in their capabilities. Temporary dips reflect natural learning challenges.
3.3.4 Mentorship effectiveness
Students generally evaluated their program mentors positively, as shown in Table 1 with mean scores mostly above 3 out of 4 across various mentoring aspects.
Table 1. Mentor effectiveness (N = 13, from all 4 cohorts).
Mentors were seen as supportive, interested, and effective in fostering research skills, confidence, and independence. The lowest mean score (2.62) was for helping students decide on a career path, indicating this area may need improvement. Additionally, the low score of 2.23 on the negative item about mentors being too busy suggests students generally felt comfortable approaching their mentors. Overall, students view their mentors as engaged and helpful throughout their research experience.
3.3.5 STEM career intentions in biomedical research
The final questions on the post-assessment survey asked students to rate their likelihood of pursuing a career in biomedical research “now” compared to before their summer research experience. Over 54% of the students expressed that they were significantly more inclined to pursue a career in biomedical research after their summer research experience. On the other hand, 23% of the students did not indicate an increased likelihood of pursuing such a career. In Figure 5, it is worth noting that out of the 9 students in the ultimate and current placement, all of them are involved in biomedical research. This aligns with the 7 students who mentioned being much more likely to pursue a career in biomedical research, with an additional 2 students now engaged in current scientific research in biomedicine. This reflects that the program positively influenced students' decisions to pursue careers in biomedical research.
Figure 5. Intentions to pursue a biomedical research career. (N = 13, from all 4 cohorts). For frequency, please refer to Supplementary Table 5.
3.4 Focus groups
Analysis of the focus group data revealed that students acquired both technical and knowledge-based skills in biomaterials research. They also reported learning time management and teamwork skills, which enabled them to collaborate effectively toward shared objectives. Additionally, participants demonstrated a sense of responsibility for their work and reported growth in their ability to collaborate with individuals from diverse academic backgrounds. Positive experiences with their mentors were also noted. Students highlighted specific technical skills gained through the program, including exposure to biomaterials and laboratory resources at UVIC, as well as training in techniques such as AutoCAD and bioprinting. The program supported the development of research competencies alongside professional and personal growth. Despite challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants from Cohorts 1 and 2 expressed satisfaction with the opportunity to engage in wet bench work and reported an overall positive experience with the IRES: UTEP–UVIC program. Participants also provided constructive feedback on areas for improvement. These included concerns about the limited time spent at UVIC, issues related to payment logistics, and a lack of transparency regarding compensation. Suggestions reflected each cohort's unique experiences and perspectives. For additional results and discussion on Pre- and Post-Focus Groups, their Scientific Accomplishments and the role of Graduate-mentoring of the UG cohorts and co-mentoring with other REU students is included in Supplementary Table 3.
4 Discussion
Offering students immersive research experiences that enable them to investigate and discover important unmet needs firsthand is an effective strategy for promoting interest (Denend et al., 2023) in biomaterials engineering and related jobs at the nexus of biotechnology and engineering. The evaluation findings for the funded cohorts indicate that the program effectively carried out its activities and achieved its objectives. To evaluate the students' summer research experience, they were asked to complete assessment surveys before and after the research period. The results of the assessment demonstrate that the research experience had a beneficial effect on the students. They reported increased confidence in their ability to engage in research-related tasks following their research experience.
The focus group findings suggest that the IRES: UTEP–UVIC hybrid program had a meaningful impact on students' academic and professional development. Beyond technical skill acquisition, participants emphasized the value of interdisciplinary collaboration, which allowed them to engage with peers from diverse academic backgrounds. Such collaboration not only fosters teamwork but also encourages critical thinking and broadens students' perspectives, skills essential in global research environments. Mentorship emerged as a key component of the students' positive experiences, reinforcing the importance of mentor-mentee relationships in supporting student growth. While logistical challenges were identified, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, students' suggestions provide valuable insight for improving future iterations of the program. These include increasing time for hands-on research, enhancing transparency around compensation, and streamlining administrative processes. Overall, the experience appeared to influence participants' future aspirations, with many expressing a stronger interest in pursuing graduate education and careers in biomedical research. These findings align with prior research suggesting that even short-term international research experiences can positively shape students' academic trajectories and professional goals (Knight and Sanderlin, 2020; Kim and Yoon, 2022; Wilson et al., 2019). Moreover, research shows that a strong sense of belonging, and academic hope significantly predict persistence among underrepresented students, particularly when supported by cohort-based programs, peer mentoring, and early research opportunities such as the one presented in this study (Zhou and Shirazi, 2025; Han et al., 2021; Hausmann et al., 2007; Estrada et al., 2016). The hybrid research experience model employed by the IRES: UTEP–UVIC program, which combines local engagement with international immersion, represents a transformative approach to developing underrepresented students in STEM. This model addresses systemic barriers while simultaneously building both technical expertise and essential soft skills (Munir, 2022; Del Vitto, 2008). Educational inequities are mitigated by providing hands-on access to research tools and experiences both locally and internationally, supported through stipends and travel allowances that remove financial obstacles to participation (Romero et al., 2025). Access to research laboratories and mentors within the students' familiar local environment offers meaningful engagement with culturally relevant role models and peers. At the same time, international placements connect students with diverse mentors and collaborators, expanding their professional networks and fostering confidence to envision themselves in STEM careers on a global scale (Thiry and Laursen, 2011; Liu et al., 2024). Together, these experiences expose students to advanced technologies, interdisciplinary approaches, and diverse scientific cultures, broadening their perspectives and strengthening their sense of belonging within the scientific community. This model sharpens technical skills such as experimental design, coding, data analysis, and scientific writing (Russell et al., 2007; Jalali et al., 2024), while also fostering cultural competency, cross-cultural communication, and global scientific awareness (Agyapong et al., 2018). These competencies support smoother transitions from students' cultural backgrounds into the norms and expectations of collaborative professional scientific environments. Mentorship frameworks within the program contributed significantly to boosting students' self-efficacy and science identity, factors known to improve persistence in STEM fields (Thiry and Laursen, 2011; Chemers et al., 2011). Working alongside practicing researchers on authentic projects not only improved retention but also increased career ambition, intellectual development, and confidence in scientific skills (Lopatto, 2007). International research exposure also played a pivotal role in shaping a student's career by enhancing research and interpersonal skills, cultivating global perspectives, and creating opportunities for publications and collaborations. Participation in such programs has been shown to support students' academic and professional success with those engaged in international experiences often exhibiting higher employment rates and more developed transferable skills (Ruth et al., 2019), helping students build strong international networks, improve cross-cultural communication, and demonstrate adaptability, qualities that are highly sought after by academic institutions, global organizations, and multinational employers (Di Pietro, 2022; Verbyla et al., 2024; Schneider et al., 2023). Ultimately, the hybrid (local and international) research experience equips underrepresented students with the skills, mentorship, and networks necessary to thrive and lead in the global STEM workforce.
The IRES: UTEP–UVIC program demonstrated strong outcomes in fostering STEM engagement among underrepresented students; however, design gaps were evident. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic had a considerable impact on the program's effectiveness and outcomes. Most notably, it disrupted recruitment for the second cohort and prevented students from traveling to the University of Victoria, a core component of the international experience designed to enhance cross-cultural scientific collaboration. While this limitation likely constrained some intended outcomes, such as international networking and immersive foreign lab training, participants still reported satisfaction with practical aspects of the program, including wet bench work and research skill development. This suggests that despite pandemic-related challenges, the core educational and research objectives were partially achieved, echoing findings from other STEM programs affected by COVID-19 (Zohrabi Alaee et al., 2022; Zohrabi Alaee and Zwickl, 2023). Additionally, gaps included mentorship shortcomings, particularly in career guidance. Some students experienced decreases in confidence related to peer collaboration and cultural openness post-program, indicating a need for enhanced team-building and intercultural training. Issues with compensation transparency and short host institution stays also affected participant satisfaction. Addressing these gaps through structured mentorship, robust virtual alternatives, clearer communication, and extended international engagement could further strengthen the program's impact.
The analysis of students' academic and project records indicates that the IRES: UTEP-UVIC program had a beneficial effect on the academic and professional outcomes of all thirteen participants, despite the gaps and challenges. As of the time of this report, nine students have successfully obtained their bachelor's degrees, and five out of those nine students are currently pursuing graduate degrees. In the fall of 2023, a total of nine students, comprising four undergraduates and five graduate students, were enrolled in STEM coursework. Importantly, all students remained in college and continued their studies in STEM majors. The IRES: UTEP-UVIC program yielded a total of thirteen research outputs, including seven publications and six presentations, which emerged from the students' research projects. These achievements demonstrate the program's effectiveness in achieving its objectives and positively influencing the participants. The program successfully recruited and engaged thirteen UTEP STEM students in international research experiences. Notably, a majority of the students came from underrepresented groups. Moreover, the students made significant contributions to the knowledge concerning the role of growth factors, micro-environmental niche, and cues released from biomaterial scaffolds in regulating the differentiation of adult human pluripotent stem cells (PSC) into neural phenotypes. Throughout the project, we continually assessed and made improvements with each cohort to enhance the program's effectiveness. Based on feedback and observations, we made several adjustments, such as refining the research projects to better align with students' interests, enhancing the virtual components for those unable to travel, and incorporating more structured mentorship opportunities. These changes were aimed at improving the overall experience and outcomes for each cohort. Regarding cultural awareness, we explicitly taught the cohorts about cultural awareness through pre-departure orientations, workshops, and discussions that focused on cross-cultural communication, understanding different research environments, and navigating cultural differences in professional settings. Additionally, we measured the impact of the research experience and travel to Canada on the students' cultural awareness. This dual approach allowed us to assess how well the program prepared students for international collaboration and how the immersive experience further developed their cultural competencies.
It is important to note that the survey was not formally adapted or pilot-tested with the student cohorts prior to dissemination. Additionally, the small sample size limits the generalizability and interpretability of the findings. As such, the outcomes should be interpreted primarily through a qualitative lens. Despite these limitations, the insights gained are critical for assessing our efforts and guiding the future direction of the program, should it continue. We also plan to pursue further validation of the instrument in future studies, potentially through mixed-method approaches or larger-scale implementations to strengthen reliability and contextual relevance.
In summary, the involvement in international research experiences holds great significance in interdisciplinary biomedical engineering education. The international research exposures for the UTEP students at UVIC both remotely and on-site offered numerous benefits, including fostering a global perspective, facilitating collaboration with peers and access to world class research laboratories outside their home institution. Our outcomes strongly align with the overarching, long-term goals of the NSF's IRES program which are to enhance U.S. leadership in science and engineering research and education and to strengthen economic competitiveness through training the next generation of science research leaders. Our efforts led to the development of a world-class U.S. STEM workforce through international research experiences for cohorts of UTEP UG students. This was achieved by research discussions, promoting cultural exchange and supporting professional development of the engaged students. These experiences are invaluable for advancing scientific knowledge, promoting innovation, and addressing complex global issues collaboratively.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
This study was approved by the University of Texas at El Paso IRB on October 13, 2021 with a protocol ID 1489976-3. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
IH: Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. SW: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization, Resources. BJ: Formal analysis, Project administration, Methodology, Supervision, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Resources, Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) through IRES Track I: US-Canada Collaborative Research on Biomaterials for stem cell culture and neural differentiation (Award Number:2515120). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NSF.
Acknowledgments
Our appreciation goes to all the students who participated in the project, completed the survey, and consented to have their anonymized data included in our study. The authors also would like to thank UTEP COE Outreach program coordinator, Ms. Luisa Arvizu and MMBME department coordinator, Kaitlin Jensvold for their contributions to the coordination and management of the project and their help in coordinating travel and other logistics. The authors would also like to acknowledge Denise Delgado, Corral Guadalupe and Perla Perez at Research Evaluation & Assessment Services, Research & Innovation, The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 W University, El Paso, TX 79968, for their evaluation of this program and cohorts. The authors are also grateful to Professor Dr. Kyung An Han at UTEP for her help in recruiting and mentoring the cohorts for this program.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Author disclaimer
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NSF.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1605724/full#supplementary-material
References
Agyapong, D., Brautlacht, R., and Owino, J. (2018). “University collaboration-research collaboration and teaching collaboration: competency-based learning using a cross-cultural students' project,” in Handbook of Applied Teaching and Learning, eds. R. Brautlacht, D. Agyapong and J. Owino (Sankt Augustin: University of Applied Sciences Bonn-Rhein-Sieg), 46–65.
Alonzo, M., Delgado, M., Cleetus, C., Kumar, S. A., Thakur, V., Chattopadhyay, M., et al. (2020). Methods for histological characterization of cryo-induced myocardial infarction in a rat model. Acta Histochem. 122:151624. doi: 10.1016/j.acthis.2020.151624
Alonzo, M., El Khoury, R., Nagiah, N., Thakur, V., Chattopadhyay, M., and Joddar, B. (2022). 3D biofabrication of a cardiac tissue construct for sustained longevity and function. ACS Applied Mat. Interf. 14, 21800–21813. doi: 10.1021/acsami.1c23883
Anekstein, A. M., and Vereen, L. G. (2018). Research mentoring: a study of doctoral student experiences and research productivity. J. Counsel. Prepar. Supervis. 11, 5. doi: 10.7729/1101052
Bieschke, K. J., Bishop, R. M., and Garcia, V. L. (1996). The utility of the research self-efficacy scale. J. Career Assess. 4, 59–75. doi: 10.1177/106907279600400104
Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., and Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. J. Soc. Issues. 67, 469–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x
Del Vitto, C. (2008). Cross-cultural “soft skills” and the global engineer: corporate best practices and trainer methodologies. Online J. Global Eng. Educ. 3. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ojgee/vol3/iss1/1
Denend, L., Spielman, S., Venook, R., Pamnani, R. D., Camarillo, D., Wall, J., et al. (2023). Using an accelerated undergraduate needs finding course to build skills, inspire confidence, and promote interest in health technology innovation. Biomed. Eng. Educ. 3, 319–29. doi: 10.1007/s43683-023-00109-3
Di Pietro, G. (2022). International internships and skill development: a systematic review. Rev. Educ. 10:e3363. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3363
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., and Tsukayama, E. (2021). Revisiting the factor structure of grit: a commentary on Duckworth and Quinn (2009). J. Pers. Assess. 103, 573–575. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2021.1942022
El Khoury, R., Nagiah, N., Mudloff, J. A., Thakur, V., Chattopadhyay, M., and Joddar, B. (2021). 3D bioprinted spheroidal droplets for engineering the heterocellular coupling between cardiomyocytes and cardiac fibroblasts. Cyborg Bion. Syst. 2021:9864212. doi: 10.34133/2021/9864212
Esparza, A., Jimenez, N., Joddar, B., and Natividad-Diaz, S. (2023). Development of In Vitro Cardiovascular Tissue Models Within Capillary Circuit Microfluidic Devices Fabricated with 3D Stereolithography Printing. Durham, NC: Research Square, Inc.
Estrada, M., Burnett, M., Campbell, A. G., Campbell, P. B., Denetclaw, W. F., Gutiérrez, C. G., et al. (2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 15:es5. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038
Hall, K., and Starzec, K. (2024). Using an interrupted case study to engage undergraduates' critical thinking style and enhance content knowledge. J. Empower. Teach. Excell. 8:5. doi: 10.59620/2644-2132.1142
Han, J., Kelley, T., and Knowles, J. G. (2021). Factors influencing student STEM learning: Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, 21st century skills, and career awareness. J. STEM Educ. Res. 4, 117–37. doi: 10.1007/s41979-021-00053-3
Hausmann, L. R., Schofield, J. W., and Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students. Res. High. Educ. 48, 803–839. doi: 10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9
Hernandez, I., Ramirez, S. P., Salazar, W. V., Mendivil, S., Guevara, A., Patel, A., et al. (2023). A semi–three dimensional (3D) bioprinted neurocardiac system for tissue engineering of a cardiac autonomic nervous system (CANS) model. Bioengineering. 10:834. doi: 10.20944/preprints202306.0887.v1
Jalali, Y., Barilla, J., Davis, K., Lohani, V., and Müller, R. (2024). Learning outcomes, benefits, and challenges of International Research Experiences for Students (IRES): an exploratory study of an IRES program in China. J. Int. Eng. Educ. 6:1. doi: 10.23860/jiee.2024.06.01.01
Joddar, B., Guy, A. T., Kamiguchi, H., and Ito, Y. (2013). Spatial gradients of chemotropic factors from immobilized patterns to guide axonal growth and regeneration. Biomaterials 34, 9593–9601. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.08.019
Joddar, B., Hoshiba, T., Chen, G., and Ito, Y. (2014). Stem cell culture using cell-derived substrates. Biomater. Sci. 2, 1595–1603. doi: 10.1039/C4BM00126E
Joddar, B., and Ito, Y. (2011). Biological modifications of materials surfaces with proteins for regenerative medicine. J. Mater. Chem. 21, 13737–13755. doi: 10.1039/c1jm10984g
Joddar, B., and Ito, Y. (2013). Artificial niche substrates for embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cell cultures. J. Biotechnol. 168, 218–228. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2013.04.021
Joddar, B., Kitajima, T., and Ito, Y. (2011). The effects of covalently immobilized hyaluronic acid substrates on the adhesion, expansion, and differentiation of embryonic stem cells for in vitro tissue engineering. Biomaterials 32, 8404–8415. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.083
Joddar, B., Loyola, C. D., Ramirez, S. P., and Singh, I. (2023). Inhibition of ERK 1/2 pathway downregulates YAP1/TAZ signaling in human cardiomyocytes exposed to hyperglycemic conditions. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 640, 7–13. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2023.01.014
Joddar, B., Natividad-Diaz, S. L., Padilla, A. E., Esparza, A. A., Ramirez, S. P., Chambers, D. R., et al. (2022). Engineering approaches for cardiac organoid formation and their characterization. Transl. Res. 250, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2022.08.009
Joddar, B., Nishioka, C., Takahashi, E., and Ito, Y. (2015). Chemically fixed autologous feeder cell-derived niche for human induced pluripotent stem cell culture. J. Mater. Chem. B 3, 2301–2307. doi: 10.1039/C4TB01635A
Joddar, B., and Ramamurthi, A. (2006a). Fragment size-and dose-specific effects of hyaluronan on matrix synthesis by vascular smooth muscle cells. Biomaterials 27, 2994–3004. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.01.020
Joddar, B., and Ramamurthi, A. (2006b). Elastogenic effects of exogenous hyaluronan oligosaccharides on vascular smooth muscle cells. Biomaterials 27, 5698–5707. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.07.020
Joddar, B. I. R. E. S. (2018). Track 1: US–Canada collaborative research on biomaterials for stem cell culture and neural differentiation. NSF Award Number 1854008, Vol. 18. Alexandria, VA: Office of International Science and Engineering (OD/OISE), 54008.
Kim, G., and Yoon, Y. (2022). “Work-in-progress: running an in-person NSF IRES program in South Korea before and during COVID-19,” in ASEE annual conference exposition proceedings. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
Knight, D. B., and Sanderlin, N. (2020). “Assessing the impact of IRES on researchers, research outcomes, and students: a case study approach,” in Education and Human Resources Programs Division Reports. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation (NSF).
Liu, A., Shapiro, C., Gregg, J., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Sanders O'Leary, E., and Kennison, R. L. (2024). Scaling up a life sciences college career exploration course to foster STEM confidence and career self-efficacy. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 42, 378–94. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2022.2083599
Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE—Life Sci. Educ. 6, 297–306. doi: 10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039
Markle, R. S., Williams, T. M., Williams, K. S., deGravelles, K. H., Warner, I. M., and Bagayoko, D. (2022). Supporting historically underrepresented groups in STEM higher education: The promise of structured mentoring networks. Front. Educ. 7:674669. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.674669
Miller, K., Espinosa, T., Araujo, I., and Gallegos, I. (2023). Response-shift bias in student self-efficacy during an actively taught physics course. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19:020167. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020167
Miville, M. L., Romans, J. S. C., Johnson, D., and Lone, R. (2004). Universal-diverse orientation: linking social attitudes with wellness. J. College Stud. Psychother. 19, 61–79. doi: 10.1300/J035v19n02_06
Munir, F. (2022). More than technical experts: Engineering professionals' perspectives on the role of soft skills in their practice. Indus. High. Educ. 36, 294–305. doi: 10.1177/09504222211034725
National Center for Education Statistics (2023). University of Texas at El Paso. College Navigator. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities 2023. Special Report NSF 23-315. Alexandria (VA): National Science Foundation
National Science Foundation (2023). International Research Experiences for Students (IRES). Alexandria (VA): National Science Foundation
Padilla, A. E., Joddar, B., Hovell, C., Mares, J., and Reumers, V. (2022). Electrophysiological recording of human neuronal networks in-vitro for testing on a suborbital spaceflight. bioRxiv. 25:512608. doi: 10.1101/2022.10.25.512608
Pierszalowski, S., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., and Marlow, L. A. (2021). systematic review of barriers to accessing undergraduate research for STEM students: problematizing under-researched factors for students of color. Soc. Sci. 10:328. doi: 10.3390/socsci10090328
Ramirez, S. P., Hernandez, I., Balcorta, H. V., Kumar, P., Kumar, V., Poon, W., et al. (2023). Microcomputed tomography for the microstructure evaluation of 3D bioprinted scaffolds. ACS Applied Bio. Mat. 6, 3490–3499. doi: 10.1021/acsabm.3c00621
Romero, A. L., Cobian, K. P., and Martín, P. A. (2025). Understanding the complexities of financial support for students in grant-funded STEMM training programs. Front. Educ. 10:1445151. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1445151
Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., and McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science. 316, 548–549. doi: 10.1126/science.1140384
Ruth, A., Brewis, A., Blasco, D., and Wutich, A. (2019). Long-term benefits of short-term research-integrated study abroad. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 23, 265–80. doi: 10.1177/1028315318786448
Schneider, V., Grau, D., and Ariaratnam, S. T. (2023). Designing an international research experience for graduate students. Front. Educ. 8:1154786. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1154786
Singer, A., Montgomery, G., and Schmoll, S. (2020). How to foster the formation of STEM identity: studying diversity in an authentic learning environment. Int. J. STEM Educ. 7:57. doi: 10.1186/s40594-020-00254-z
Tasnim, N., Kumar, A., and Joddar, B. (2017). Attenuation of the in vitro neurotoxicity of 316L SS by graphene oxide surface coating. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 73, 788–797. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2016.12.123
Tasnim, N., Thakur, V., Chattopadhyay, M., and Joddar, B. (2018). The efficacy of graphene foams for culturing mesenchymal stem cells and their differentiation into dopaminergic neurons. Stem Cells Int. 2018:3410168. doi: 10.1155/2018/3410168
Thiry, H., and Laursen, S. L. (2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 20, 771–84. doi: 10.1007/s10956-010-9271-2
Verbyla, M. E., Vernaza-Hernandez, V., and Feldman, A. (2024). International research experiences and global competency development for graduate students in engineering and science. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 28, 221–39. doi: 10.1177/10283153231172019
Wilson, C., Hirtz, M., Levkin, P. A., and Sutlief, A. L. (2019). Facilitating an international research experience focused on applied nanotechnology and surface chemistry for American undergraduate students collaborating with mentors at a German educational and research institution. J. Chem. Educ. 96, 2441–2449. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00146
Xu, Y. J. (2013). Career outcomes of STEM and non-STEM college graduates: persistence in majored-field and influential factors in career choices. Res. High. Educ. 54, 349–82. doi: 10.1007/s11162-012-9275-2
Zhou, Y., Mao, H., Joddar, B., Umeki, N., Sako, Y., Wada, K., et al. (2015). The significance of membrane fluidity of feeder cell-derived substrates for maintenance of iPS cell stemness. Sci. Rep. 5:11386. doi: 10.1038/srep11386
Zhou, Y., and Shirazi, S. (2025). Factors influencing young people's STEM career aspirations and career choices: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 18, 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s10763-025-10552-z
Zohrabi Alaee, D., Campbell, M. K., and Zwickl, B. M. (2022). Impact of virtual research experience for undergraduates experiences on students' psychosocial gains during the COVID-19 pandemic. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18:010101. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010101
Keywords: International Research Experience for Students (IRES), biomaterials, stem, undergraduate students, survey
Citation: Hernandez I, Willerth SM and Joddar B (2025) Assessing the effects of a hybrid approach based on accelerated undergraduate research training and international experience in biomaterials. Front. Educ. 10:1605724. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1605724
Received: 15 May 2025; Accepted: 08 October 2025;
Published: 12 November 2025.
Edited by:
Vanda Santos, University of Aveiro, PortugalReviewed by:
Stephanie M. Gardner, Purdue University, United StatesFİlİz Gülhan, Ministry of National Education, Türkiye
Copyright © 2025 Hernandez, Willerth and Joddar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Binata Joddar, YmluYXRhLmpvZGRhckBvcmVnb25zdGF0ZS5lZHU=
†Present address: Ivana Hernandez, Bioengineering Program, School of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States