1 Introduction

Maintaining a laboratory notebook helps the researcher to communicate and collaborate, elaborate their thoughts, protect their ideas as intellectual property, and be in compliance with their employer [1]. Lab notebooks have such a central role in research that a manual published by Cold Spring Harbor advised that it should be the one thing researchers grab in case of a fire—as all of their research should be replicable using it [2]. Despite being an essential research skill, many graduate students report a scarcity of formal undergraduate training on keeping a laboratory notebook [3]. To help life science students bridge the gap to their next position, whether in academia or industry, undergraduate and graduate laboratories should employ authentic laboratory notebook experiences.

The vast majority of data generated by today’s scientists—from gel images to sequencing data—is produced as electronic files. Therefore, the next logical step for scientific note keeping is to transition to an electronic format. Most major biopharmaceutical companies have already transitioned, citing ease of accessing standard protocols, managerial oversight, and verification of timestamps of data collection for patent purposes [4]. Healthcare has also implemented the electronic format, with 84.5% of United States physicians using some form of electronic health record (EHR) as part of their practice as of 2014 [5]. STEM competencies for college graduates often include a form of digital literacy, data acquisition, and effective note-taking [6, 7]. Thus, providing undergraduates and graduate students with experience using an electronic lab notebook (ELN) system is granting them a valuable skill for their future careers.

Undergraduate educators have described their experiences with implementing ELN systems in various science laboratories. Bromfield Lee et al. [8] compared Google Docs versus paper notebooks in an organic chemistry lab and found that the ELN students spent more time filling out the notebook entry (particularly formatting chemical formulas), but less time later when preparing lab reports. While it was easy for instructors to make comments, students did not always utilize many of the helpful features of the software. Walsh and Cho [9] tested Evernote in the research laboratory setting, reporting that the ELN could do everything a paper notebook can do with additional benefits. Johnston et al. [10] tested an ePortfolio system in biochemistry labs, reporting that the ELN system increased student preparedness and allowed participants to capture procedures with photos and videos. Okon and Nocera [11] compared the quality of student entries in paper notebooks vs. ELNs in an engineering lab course, reporting that the quality increased with ELN use. Researchers hesitant to switch mostly cited the “comfort and familiarity” of paper notebooks. Others have fabricated their own systems, such as a collection of Word documents on Google Drive [12] or writing their own software [13], which require extensive instructor effort. An earlier report on LabArchives [14] noted that it took them some time to be comfortable with the ELN, with around half preferring the ELN format for the course. While these reports largely focused on the mechanics and quality of entries, information about the students’ reception and perception of the notebooks in their own words is lacking.

Here, we outline the large-scale implementation of the LabArchives ELN system in our main molecular biology laboratory course, including student and graduate teaching assistant (TA) feedback from surveys and focus groups. Students rate ELNs higher than paper notebooks on several key aspects of notekeeping, and overwhelmingly prefer the electronic format after having used it during the semester. Although course grades do not appear to be affected, most students indicated that the ELN assisted in learning the course content. Students and TAs also provided helpful feedback that instructors will find useful for transitioning their courses to the ELN system.

The research questions that we addressed in this study are:

  1. 1)

    What are students’ perspectives on using the electronic laboratory notebook format for record keeping?

  2. 2)

    What is the perspective of graduate teaching assistants on teaching with electronic laboratory notebooks instead of paper notebooks?

  3. 3)

    Does the use of electronic notebooks affect student performance in the course?

  4. 4)

    What are students’ perspectives on the role of electronic laboratory notebooks in sustainable lab practices?

2 Methods

2.1 Course implementation

Starting in Fall 2016, we implemented ELNs in all sections of a semester-long molecular biology course focused on molecular cloning and protein expression. This class is a four-credit course consisting of a two-hour lecture and five-hour lab each week and is a prerequisite for more focused, subject-specific laboratory courses [15, 16]. The course is cross-listed for undergraduate and graduate students with typically about half of each. Three sections of ~ 30 students each are run simultaneously during Fall and Spring semesters, with an additional smaller section during the Summer semester (see Supplemental Table 1). As the course is not required for any major, students come from a variety of majors, colleges, and degree programs across campus (see Supplemental Fig. 1 and Supplemental Table 2).

After piloting several ELN services, we opted for the fee-for-service LabArchives Classroom Edition system (https://www.labarchives.com/ or https://www.esciencenotebook.com/) due to the inclusion of teaching-specific features, including the ability to assign students to specific TAs and instructors and to mark specific pages as ‘Assignments’ that can be electronically submitted and graded (LabArchives is certified FERPA compliant). These features allowed for the instructors/TAs to easily access each weekly entry for their students. Lab entry pages can also be signed and locked, which assists with grading and can be used to protect intellectual property. After entering their names and email addresses into the system, the students receive an email from LabArchives instructing them to set up an account. Our program covered the fee of $13–15/student. All protocols used in the course were made available through LabArchives in lieu of a separate lab manual. Students are able to download their lab manual as a PDF for future reference. The LabArchives features used in the course were sharing of established files and folders (for protocols and outline of expected lab entries), text entry (for student writing of lab entries), and file attachment (for students to deposit raw data); these features are not science-specific and could be used in a large variety of course settings.

2.2 Data collection

For each semester from Fall 2016 to Spring 2018, students were invited to complete optional, anonymous online pre/post-surveys asking a series of questions about using ELNs. Survey questions were developed de novo based on good notebook-keeping practices and fell into three main categories: binary questions (Yes/No), lists of good aspects of lab notebooks [2, 3], and open-ended questions. Focus group questions were developed based on the answers to the pre-survey. Focus groups were run during Fall 2017 and Spring 2017 to capture additional student feedback about ELN use. Focus groups were limited to eight participants, and the groups were run by an instructor from another section who was not directly teaching the participants; students self-selected to participate and were awarded two points of extra credit for the final exam in the course for attending. In total, thirteen focus groups were run with between two and eight students in each, for a total of 68 participants. TAs were also surveyed in Fall 2017 using an optional, anonymous online survey. Data were analyzed in aggregate. The protocol was approved by the NCSU IRB in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1979 Belmont Report. The pre/post surveys and focus group protocol are available as Supplemental Surveys and Supplemental Protocol.

2.3 Data analysis: survey data

Survey questions with discrete answers were analyzed using R. Likert score data were analyzed using Wilcoxon rank sum tests since the data were ordinal and unpaired. The data were not assumed to be normally distributed. Comparisons of lab notebook items included in notebook entries in pre- and post-course surveys were made using one proportion Z-tests. Comparisons of notebook preference in pre- and post-course surveys were made using proportion Z-tests. In these tests, the null hypothesis was that there was no difference between the proportion of respondents answering yes or no. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare student responses to survey questions about sustainability, pre/post-survey data was not paired (no codes or identifiers used). For all tests, we assumed that the study population size was sufficiently large to be random and independent. Free response questions were placed into categories determined by the researchers.

2.4 Data analysis: coding of focus group transcripts

Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed by a third party (Rev.com). Braun and Clarke’s six-step thematic analysis [17] was performed to identify and refine de novo codes from the data. One researcher (S. Chen) reviewed the transcripts and decided on an initial set of codes. The original researcher (S. Chen) and a second researcher (C. Garcia) then separately reviewed a subset of transcripts using the initial codes. The two researchers then discussed the themes and modified the coding scheme. One set of codes was used for question 1 (apprehensive, excited, indifferent), and a separate set of codes was applied collectively to questions 2 and 3 (Positive Insert Image, Positive Typing, Positive Access, Positive Lab Report Prep, Negative Figure Editing, Negative Text Editing, Negative Access, Negative Laptop). Further questions were not used, as they did not present new data outside of that collected in the surveys. Each researcher then individually applied the new coding scheme to all of the transcripts. Codes were applied once per instance per student. The two researchers then compared their analyses and discussed to reach a consensus. Before the discussion, ~ 80–90% of the coding was in agreement.

3 Results

3.1 Student attitudes

To address our first research question of students’ perspectives on using electronic laboratory notebooks, we used a pre/post-survey and focus groups during the course. As part of the focus groups, students were asked about their initial reaction to learning they would be using electronic notebooks in the laboratory portion of the course. While the majority of students were understandably apprehensive (about half of those participating in the focus groups), many were excited about the possibility (Table 1). A minority were indifferent about the lab notebook format they would be expected to use, due to having used several systems in the past or simply not having a strong opinion on the topic.

Table 1 Coded responses of attitudes towards ELNs from focus groups conducted at the end of the Spring 2017 and Fall 2017 semesters
Full size table

Additionally, students in the focus groups identified both positive and negative aspects of using the ELN system (Tables 2, 3). Participants recognized that the ELNs were helpful for recording, finding, and saving data (insert images/data, typing vs. handwriting, and access) and translating that data into lab reports (lab report preparation), which are prepared and submitted electronically in our course. Many students expressed frustration with the physical aspects of implementation, including the LabArchives user interface (figure editing, text editing, and access) and the computers provided (laptops/browsers). Interestingly, many of the topics, such as figure entry, text editing, and access, were brought up as having both positive and negative aspects. Most of the positive aspects, such as uploading files, typing out text, and having a search function, are inherent to the electronic format and would apply across systems. In contrast, the negative comments were almost exclusively about the interface of the particular systems used (software or hardware).

Table 2 Coded responses of positive ELN attributes from focus groups conducted at the end of the Spring 2017 and Fall 2017 semesters
Full size table
Table 3 Coded responses of negative ELN attributes from focus groups conducted at the end of the Spring 2017 and Fall 2017 semesters
Full size table

In the pre-/post-surveys, students were able to identify positive aspects of ELN use both before and after having used them. Collectively, students predicted that using ELNs instead of paper would make searching, copying protocols, production of publication-quality figures, and contributions to sustainability easier (Fig. 1). Their opinions on the ease of these aspects were essentially unchanged at the end of the semester. Interestingly, students predicted that recording information in paper notebooks would be easier than ELNs in pre-course surveys; however, the difference was not significant in post-course surveys. Students also predicted that the overall ease-of-use for both types of notebook would be similar in pre-course surveys, but students rated the overall ease-of-use for ELNs significantly higher than paper notebooks in the post-course surveys. These data suggest that their overall perception of lab notebook use was based on their ability to record data easily.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Student scoring of the ease of using either paper or electronic lab notebooks to perform various note keeping tasks. Data are from surveys from all semesters (Fall 2016, Spring 2017, Summer 2017, Fall 2017, Spring 2018). Values were compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. (1 = extremely difficult, 5 = extremely easy; Pre-survey n = 318, Post-survey n = 198; NS = not significant, * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.001)

Full size image

Students were also asked to select which items/features they believe should be components of an ideal notebook entry (“Ideal”) and, from the same list, which they typically include in their lab notebook entries (“Actual”). As seen in Fig. 2, average values for Ideal typically exceed Actual, with the exception of including data. The largest discrepancies were in publication-quality images, including references, and signing/witnessing the entries. Between the pre- and post-surveys, the gaps between Ideal and Actual closed for many of the items. When comparing the items typically included (“Actual”) at the start of the semester (before using the course ELN) versus at the end of the semester (after using the course ELN),there were significant changes in the inclusion of the goal (p = 2.8E-5), methods (p = 0.0019), data (p = 0.0078), description (p = 9.1E-6), publication-quality images (p < 2.2E-16), hypotheses (p = 2.5E-8), and discussion (p = 1.5E-10). While this is likely related to the mandatory lab entry structure for the course, the creation of publication-quality images in particular would be fairly difficult in a paper notebook format, as indicated by students in Fig. 1. While signing and witnessing were also required course components, these were done by having the student and TA electronically “signing” and locking the entry (displaying user name and time stamp), which the students may not have interpreted as an actual signature.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Student self-reporting of what laboratory notebook sections they think an ideal notebook should contain (Ideal) vs. what is actually in their typical notebook (Actual). Data are from surveys from all semesters (Fall 2016, Spring 2017, Summer 2017, Fall 2017, Spring 2018; Pre-survey n = 317, Post-survey n = 198)

Full size image

3.2 Student preference

In addition to general perspectives of usage, we were interested in whether students would prefer the newer electronic laboratory notebook over the traditional paper format. Although students were split between a preference for paper or electronic notebook format in the pre-survey (46.8% vs. 53.2%), there was a significant shift in the post-survey (p-value of 0.003 using the Proportion Z-test) to the majority (80.3%) of students indicating a preference for the electronic format after having used ELNs during the semester (Fig. 3). The proportions of student respondents preferring electronic to paper in the pre- and post-survey were similar across all categories of users (those who had used paper, electronic, both, or neither previously; see Supplemental Fig. 2).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Student responses to the survey question asking which style of notebook that they would prefer to use. Student response on the post-survey was significantly different than the pre-survey (p = 0.003 by Proportion Z-test)

Full size image

During the Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 semesters, a question was added to the post-survey asking students why they chose either paper or electronic as their preferred laboratory notebook format (see Fig. 3). Coding of these responses (Table 4) revealed similar themes to those revealed in the focus groups (Tables 1, 2, 3, above) and the sustainability section of the survey (discussed below). Students who preferred paper primarily chose based on ease of use (reported by 90%), likely due to their existing familiarity with using paper to take notes. Interestingly, students preferring the electronic format also selected ease of use as the primary determinant (reported by 75%) followed by access (reported by 50%).

Table 4 Coded student responses when asked why they picked paper or electronic as their preferred medium. Note that each student’s response may receive more than one code
Full size table

3.3 Teaching assistant perspective

To address our second research question of the perspective of teaching assistants, who grade the weekly notebook entries, we gave them an anonymous survey at the end of the semester. The survey responses provided by the graduate teaching assistants parallel the issues raised by the students. Although only two teaching assistants (out of four) completed the survey, similar issues of access, legibility, and technical difficulties were raised (Table 5).

Table 5 TA quotes corresponding to themes seen in student survey response data
Full size table

3.4 Contribution to learning

To assess whether the electronic laboratory notebook format had an impact on student performance, we compared lab report and overall course grades between semesters using paper or electronic laboratory notebook formats and asked students to rate the contribution of the electronic notebook to learning of the course content and confidence in laboratory note taking. Because laboratory notebooks are an essential component of learning course material, we evaluated changes in course performance as a result of ELN implementation. Two consecutive fall semesters—one before ELN implementation and one after—were chosen. Each semester combines sections taught by three instructors and four teaching assistants, who were not consistent between both semesters. There was no significant change in the first lab report grades or final course grades between paper notebook and ELN semesters (Table 6), indicating that the ELN is likely serving the same function as a paper notebook in preparing the students for course assessments. Students who used the ELN overwhelmingly indicated that use of the ELN assisted in their learning of the course content (75%) and increased their confidence in laboratory note keeping tasks (between 63 and 76% for the four tasks; Fig. 4); however, no comparable data are available for paper notebooks, which presumably would contribute to learning in a similar manner.

Table 6 Course grades for comparable semesters using paper (Fall 2015) or electronic (Fall 2016) laboratory notebooks. Grades were analyzed using a two-sample T-test
Full size table
Fig. 4
figure 4

Student responses when asked if (A) the ELN assisted in learning course content or (B) how their confidence in four essential note keeping tasks (Purpose, Procedure, Data, and Results) changed after having used ELNs during the semester. n = 196

Full size image

3.5 Contribution to sustainability

Our initial investment in the ELN system and dedicated lab computers was supported by a 2016 NCSU Sustainability Grant to reduce paper waste. Therefore, we also surveyed students about their views on how ELNs related to sustainability as our fourth research question. When asked if ELNs are sustainable, most responded ‘Yes,’ some responded ‘No,’ and a few selected ‘Unsure’ (Table 7). There was no significant change in distribution among the three answers at the end of the semester (p-value = 0.3163, unpaired t-test). This distribution corresponds to the variety of answers when asked to explain what made the ELN sustainable (Table 8). While most students did mention reduced paper usage (53.2% pre, 63.5% post; coded as “paper”) with a few specifically mentioning carbon footprint (2.1% pre, 2.7% post; coded as “carbon”), a few brought up the complications involved with energy use and longevity of computers (8.9% pre, 12.8% post; coded as “caveat”). Surprisingly, many mentioned the idea of the sustainability of their data or access to data (44.7% pre, 28.4% post; coded as “data”), as they perceived them lasting longer into the future when backed up on an external server. The relative frequency of these responses stayed largely the same at the end of the semester after students had physically used the ELNs, although there was a significant difference between the two groups of responses (p-value = 0.0356, unpaired t-test) with fewer students mentioning access and relatively more mentions of paper use. While we are not equipped to evaluate the total net contribution to the environment, we estimate that this change saved over 20,000 sheets of paper per semester, based on the estimated use of lab manuals, notebooks, and printed data.

Table 7 Multiple-choice student responses to the question of whether ELNs are sustainable
Full size table
Table 8 Coded free-response answers when students were asked about why they thought ELNs were sustainable
Full size table

4 Discussion

In the process of updating our core molecular biology lecture/lab course, an electronic laboratory notebook (ELN) system was implemented. By using a combination of surveys and focus groups, we were able to obtain insight into student attitudes and perceptions, TA perceptions, effects on course performance, and thoughts on sustainability of moving to an electronic system for note keeping in a combined undergraduate/graduate-level biotechnology course. We found the following answers to our research questions.

4.1 Q1: What is the student experience of ELN use?

We have presented an analysis of the effect of using ELNs on student attitudes in an upper-level molecular biology course, which lays the foundation for transitioning students to twenty-first-century laboratory practices. Students self-reported that use of the ELN contributed to their learning in the course and their keeping of an ideal notebook structure. The students were generally in favor of the electronic format for its advantages in legibility, searchability, and data upload/storage, as may be expected from their tech-savvy generation [18]. The frustration came from the specifics of the software and hardware that students were being asked to use. Although improvements could certainly be made in this area, it would be difficult to appease all of the concerns raised (Mac vs. PC, for example) and a learning curve will always exist when implementing a new system. This is in agreement with the previous study on LabArchives [14], which showed that it took a few weeks for students to get used to the system, and that student approval increased after software updates were made.

While many students were initially nervous about the change, the majority were proponents of the update after using electronic notebooks during the semester-long course. This is in agreement with Mullin’s comment from his article on ELNs in medicinal chemistry: “Once researchers are forced to use ELNs, they will likely never go back to paper—even if they are allowed” [19].

4.2 Q2: What is the teaching assistant perspective on ELN use?

Teaching Assistant (TA) respondents for the course identified many issues, both positive and negative, that paralleled the student experience. TAs appreciated that they did not have to decipher handwriting or have students forgetting to bring their notebooks to class, which are issues with paper notebooks. Uniquely to ELNs, the TA and student could both look at the student’s notebook at any time, allowing for email questions to be answered promptly and appropriately. TAs did note that the learning curve for the platform was steep, for both TAs and students, and that figure annotation was tedious and took more time, but did lead to publication-quality figures that could be ported directly into the lab report, saving time on that assignment. One limitation of these conclusions is that only two TAs (out of four total for the course) responded to the anonymous survey. The positive aspects identified by the TAs should be communicated up front to students to explain the advantages of using an ELN system in the course.

4.3 Q3: What is the effect of ELN use on student performance?

When compared to a paper notebook implementation of the course, there was no significant difference in course grades, which we took to indicate that ELNs are serving the same purpose as the traditional paper notebook in the course. Students indicated that ELNs help with learning the course material and confidence in note-taking, which are important components of any laboratory course. Although data was not collected for paper notebooks, this indicates that ELNs can serve an important place in laboratory learning.

4.4 Q4: What are students’ perspectives on the role of ELNs in sustainability?

The switch to ELN usage in our program was partially funded by a campus sustainability grant to reduce paper usage. Students asked about the role of ELNs in sustainability had varying perspectives on the term. While the majority of student respondents identified that ELNs save paper, almost as many students interpreted the term as sustainability of their lab data into the future, since it is backed up on a third-party server as part of the ELN. We did not define the term “sustainable” in the survey, as we wanted to capture the variety of student perspectives of the term. Some students also brought up the very important caveats that needing to use energy that may not be cleanly generated and to regularly replace computers in order to use ELNs may not cancel out the effects of reduced paper usage. While the net effect on the environment is not clear cut, the longevity of data is one positive aspect of ELN use identified by students.

4.5 Implications for undergraduate educators

As data acquisition and analysis becomes increasingly digital, scientific note keeping will need to enter this realm as well. One prominent aspect of the reproducibility crisis in the life sciences is the organization of and access to methodologies and raw data [18, 19]. In addition, many federal funding agencies are requiring Data Management and Sharing Plans for making collected data freely available [20, 21]. Truly preparing our students for research careers in the digital age will involve electronic notebook keeping. Our data indicate that students will buy into the ELN experience provided that sufficient time and explanation are allocated to help them surmount the initial learning curve. This implementation is also unlikely to negatively impact students’ grades in the laboratory. Emphasizing that time and effort put into the ELN will save time in lab report preparation may also assist in lowering student resistance. Teaching assistants also appreciate being able to easily access and read students’ notebooks at any time, increasing communication and therefore potentially reducing errors and misconceptions. Instructors should discuss how student ELN data will be accessed and shared to promote a culture of trust and scholarly research.

It should also be noted that ELN systems make for a seamless transition to online, remote-only learning, as occurred in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been described for both engineering and physiology courses [22, 23]. Students, instructors, and TAs already using the ELN in our course had continuous access to their data and notes, and instructors were also able to use the data uploaded by students in previous semesters to provide current students with example data to analyze [24]. This provided an anchor of stability and consistency in a chaotic semester.

Over the last eight years of ELN use in our program, several other changes and considerations have been noted. As LabArchives uses its own server, the site can serve as a backup or repository for raw experimental data, affording extra storage space. Students should be instructed to use the Attachment feature to include raw, un-annotated data whenever possible as part of good notekeeping practice and to allow instructors access for future needs. The LabArchives graphical user interface has also improved drastically over the years, leading to less student frustration and lowering the learning curve. To improve access to course information for current and future instructors, it is helpful to include a Resources folder under the student folders (see Supplemental Fig. 3) where old protocols, lab preparation notes, and other helpful information is stored so that all lab information is in one place.

4.6 Recommendations for smooth implementation

After using the ELNs across several semesters and soliciting feedback from students and TAs, we implemented changes that allowed for smoother use. As a best practice for introducing ELN usage to the laboratory, we suggest:

  1. 1)

    To avoid contamination from lab reagents, designate dedicated laptop computers or tablets for the lab spaces that are to be used with appropriate personal protective equipment (gloves) and do not leave the lab. Providing dedicated external mice and USB drives for data transfer are also useful.

  2. 2)

    The laptops or devices used for the ELN should be set to only update at manually selected times to avoid downtime during a lab session.

  3. 3)

    Hourly student workers can be hired to load and update software outside of lab times and import instructor lab protocols into the ELN.

  4. 4)

    Create a short video tutorial showing the computer screen while walking through the features of your class notebook.

  5. 5)

    The instructor or TA should set aside time during the first lab period for an interactive introduction to the software platform to orient the students.

  6. 6)

    The organization of the ELN is key to success, as articulated by one of the teaching assistants in the survey: “The ability to use an ELN effectively is 100% based on how you organize it and utilize it from day one.” Buckholt & Rulfs also noted that having templates and frameworks in place is important for guiding good student practices [25].

    1. a.

      Set up the notebook with separate folders for LabArchives instructions/help, Protocols (the lab manual), student data entries (the lab notebook), and a Resources folder with additional information on many of the reagents that the students use (see Supplemental Fig. 3 for folder layout).

    2. b.

      Maintain protocols together in a separate folder from student entries to mimic the practice of keeping “Standard Operating Procedures” in a single location and to reduce redundancy, since protocols may be used multiple times throughout the semester.

    3. c.

      Pre-populate the student entry folders with pages for each week, including a list of “Experimental Goals,” which briefly explain the experiments to be performed that day and the corresponding protocols to be used (Supplemental Fig. 3). Instructors can adapt the course easily by adding or removing protocols and modifying the “Experimental Goals” on the data entry page for a given lab session.

  7. 7)

    Protocol errors that may be discovered by the instructor or TA can immediately be corrected and pushed out to the student notebooks through the LabArchives system.

  8. 8)

    Reach out to the vendor (LabArchives) with any questions or concerns. Their support staff are also very responsive to inquiries from students and instructors, even on weekends.

4.7 Future research directions

After initial implementation in the main molecular biology course, ELN use has expanded to several additional advanced laboratory courses in the biotechnology program, which have BIT 410/510 as a prerequisite, and to three additional institutions implementing our molecular biology laboratory education modules (MBLEMs; [26]). The BIT Program continues to instruct ~ 150 students per semester using the LabArchives notebook system. The program currently covers the $25 per student fee; however, since there is no required textbook, it would not be overly burdensome to ask students to pay this fee if needed. Future research will focus on the longitudinal effects of electronic notebook use in subsequent laboratory courses and on student preparedness to enter the biomedical workforce.