A Non-Volunteer CURE in Introductory Biology Does Not Increase Student Retention at a Regional Comprehensive University.

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CURE) have been proposed as a mechanism to increase persistence in science. However, most evidence for their impact comes from self-reported surveys conducted under conditions of volunteer bias and at residential, resource-rich institutions. We investigated an introductory biology CURE at Eastern Michigan University, a large, diverse, nonresidential regional comprehensive university. Using institutional data from more than 2500 students across multiple semesters, we compared outcomes of the CURE in conditions both with and without volunteer bias. When students could choose whether to take the CURE or a traditional lab (volunteer CURE), students in the CURE were more likely to enroll in a subsequent biology course. When only the CURE was offered (nonvolunteer CURE), students were less likely to enroll in a subsequent biology course compared with students in previous semesters when only the traditional lab was offered. CURE participation did not affect students' likelihood of remaining at the university. Across analyses, concurrent Grade Point Average (GPA) was the strongest predictor of subsequent enrollment. These findings suggest that the effects of CUREs on persistence in STEM and university retention are shaped by volunteer bias.